THE  UNIVERSITY 


OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

62)0.  T 

WSE.Jr 

w*  \bZ-\(*\ 


-ssr 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/whiteburleytobac1521cook 


BULLETINS 


of  the 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 
TOST  VIRGINIA  UNIVERSITY 


BULLETINS 

152-161 


1916 


MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA, 


CONTENTS 


4,30.1 
NsJ  S Zh- 
x^\St-\b  t 


152-White  burley  tobacco,  I.  S. 
Cook  and  C.  H.  Scherffius 


153- An  agricultural  survey  of  Brooke 

County,  O.M. Johnson  and  A.  J, 

Dadisman 

154- Apple  ru2$t^N.  J,  Giddings  and  An- 

thony Berg 

155- Experiments  with  fertilizers,  Finnan 

E,  Bear 

156- A  second  report  on  the  University 

farm  garden,  Arthur  L.  Dacy 

157- Silos  and  silage,  E,  W.  Sheets  and 

G.  L.  Oliver 

150-The  apple  as  affected  by  varying  de- 
grees of  dormant  and  seasonal  prun- 
ing, W.H. Alderman  and  E. C. Auchter 

to 

159- Methods  in  soil  analysis,  Firman  E* 

Bear  and  Robert  M.  Salter 

160- The  residual  effects  of  fertilizers, 

Firman  E.  B6ar  and  Robert  M. Salter 

161- Analyses  of  one  hundred  West  Virginia 

soils,  Firman  E#  Bear  and  Robert  M* 
Salter 


OOOU'UJ 


June,  19  16 


Bulletin  152 


We$t  IrTtrgtma  Umtjemtp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA. 

WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


EXPERIMENTS  AND  CULTURAL  DIRECTIONS 


BY 

I.  S.  Cook  and  C.  H.  Scherffius 

IN  CO-OPERATION  WITH  BUREAU  OF  PLANT  INDUSTRY, 
U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE 


The  Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen 
of  West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S.  COOK,  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

*0.  M.  JOHNSON,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  M.S.  Agr 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc._ ... 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

fL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Se 

J.  P.  BONARDI,  B.Sc 

ROBERT  SALTER,  B.S.  Agr 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

*A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

*E.  A.  TUCKWILLER,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  B.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

C.  E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W J.  WHITE 


- Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

- Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Farm  Management 

Animal  Husbandry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

. ..Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


*In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


White  Burley  Tobacco 


By  I.  S.  COOK  and  C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS. 


In  the  spring  of  1913  an  appropriation  was  made  by  the 
West  Virginia  Legislature  to  the  Experiment  Station,  for  the 
purpose  of  conducting  experiments  with  tobacco.  Along 
with  this  appropriation,  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry  of  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  furnished  addi- 
tional funds  for  co-operative  tobacco  work  and  the  junior 
writer  of  this  bulletin  was  appointed  field  agent  in  charge 
of  tobacco  investigations.  This  tobacco  work  was  started 
late  in  the  spring  of  1913  and  consisted  of  three  fertilizer  ex- 
periments, located  at  Milton,  Hurricane  and  West  Hamlin, 
and  a variety  test  located  at  Milton.  Previous  to  this  time, 
very  little  work  had  ever  been  done  with  tobacco  by  the  West 
Virginia  Experiment  Station. 

While  the  tobacco-producing  area  of  West  Virginia  is 
limited,  yet  the  total  value  of  the  crop  amounts  to  more  than 
a half-million  dollars.  The  following  figures  give  the  amount 
of  tobacco  that  passed  through  the  Huntington  tobacco  ware- 
house for  the  yearly  periods  each  beginning  in  July  and  con- 
tinuing till  July  the  following  year: 

Production  Ave.  Value 


Year  in  lbs.  Total  Value  per  cwt. 

1912  to  1913 5,163,676  $613,862.81  $11.88 

1913  to  1914 6,023,505  712,978.91  11.87 

1914  to  1915 4,499,055  366,243.11  8.10 

1915  to  1916 4,195,690  564,982.27  13.46 


These  figures  represent  the  amount  of  tobacco  that  was 
raised  in  this  state  and  marketed  through  the  Huntington 
tobacco  warehouse.  The  tobacco  growers  in  counties  of  Ohio 
and  Kentucky  adjoining  the  Huntington  district  also  market 
tobacco  in  Huntington,  amounting  to  about  the  same  number 
of  pounds  as  that  produced  in  this  state,  although  the  value 
of  it  is  less  since  the  quality  is  not  so  good  as  the  tobacco 
raised  in  West  Virginia.  Their  average  price  per  hundred 
pounds  is  less  than  that  received  by  West  Virginia  growers 
for  each  year  indicated  above. 


4 


W.  YA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bul'.etin  152 


The  type  of  tobacco  grown  is  the  White  Burley  which  is 
chiefly  used  in  the  manufacture  of  chewing  tobacco,  although 
some  of  the  better  grades  are  largely  used  for  pipe  and  ciga- 
rette purposes  and  to  a limited  extent  for  the  manufacture 
of  cigars. 


SELECTION  OF  SOIL  AND  ROTATIONS. 


All  tobacco  growers  prefer  a virgin  soil,  and  one  on 
which  white  oak,  walnut,  maple,  and  hickory  grow  naturally 
seems  to  produce  tobacco  of  fine  quality.  While  a virgin 
soil  cannot  usually  be  had,  a soil  that  is  fertile,  containing 
an  abundance  of  organic  matter,  making  it  loose  and  mellow, 
will  produce  fine  tobacco.  Good  bluegrass  sod  land  produces 
the  best  quality  of  Burley  tobacco  and  a very  good  yield,  but 
in  the  tobacco  sections  of  this  state  very  little  bluegrass  sod 
land  is  ever  plowed.  A clover  sod  will  furnish  the  next  best 
conditions  for  a good  yield,  but  the  tobacco  does  not  have 
the  quality  of  that  secured  from  a bluegrass  sod.  Although  a 
few  farmers  are  rotating  their  crops  and  growing  clover  by 
liming  their  land,  the  majority  of  farmers  have  not  limed  and 
consequently  their  meadows  are  composed  almost  entirely  of 
timothy  and  orchard  grass.  When  a tobacco  crop  follows  this 
kind  of  sod  not  nearly  such  good  yields  are  secured  as 
after  clover  or  some  other  leguminous  crop,  although  the 
quality  of  leaf  is  better.  Therefore,  the  grower  must  deter- 
mine whether  he  wants  a high  yield  or  the  best  quality  of 
tobacco. 

The  methods  of  cropping  the  land  in  the  tobacco  sec- 
tions of  this  state  are  so  haphazard  that  farmers  do  not  know 
from  one  year  to  the  next  on  what  fields  they  are  going  to 
grow  tobacco.  It  is  more  necessary  to  have  a definite  and 
fixed  rotation  in  tobacco  growing  than  in  many  other  kinds  of 
farming.  The  following  rotation  may  be  practiced  with  good 
results  in  the  tobacco  growing  districts : 


Field 


1st  Year  2nd  Year  3rd  Year 


4th  Year  5th  Year 


No.  1 Corn  & To-  Soybeans  Wheat 

bacco(C.C.) 


Clover  and  Timothy 
Timothy 


No. 

2 

Soybeans 

Wheat 

No. 

3 

Wheat 

Clover  and 
Timothy 

No. 

4 

Clover  and 

Timothy 

Timothy 

No. 

5 

Timothy 

Corn  & To- 
bacco(C.C.) 

Clover  and  Timothy  Corn  & To- 

Timothy  bacco  (C.C.) 

Timothy  Corn  & To-  Soybeans 
bacco(C.C.) 

Corn  & To-  Soybeans  Wheat 

bacco  (C.C.) 

Soybeans  Wheat  Clover  and 

Timothy 


(C.  C.) — Cover  crop  of  rye. 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


5 


This  five-year  rotation  will  require  five  small  areas  of 
ground.  The  corn  and  tobacco  crops  are  intended  to  occupy 
the  same  area  of  land  as  is  occupied  by  any  one  of  the  other 
crops.  Farmers  who  grow  tobacco  will  also  grow  corn,  and 
tobacco  following  corn  or  corn  following  tobacco  is  not  a good 
practice.  Since  a smaller  acreage  of  tobacco  is  usually  grown 
than  that  of  hay  or  wheat  it  would  be  a better  practice  to 
divide  the  field  for  the  corn  and  tobacco  crops,  devoting  one- 
half  of  the  area  to  each  crop.  The  advantages  of  this  rotation 
over  others  are  several  but  that  of  producing  the  highest 
quality  of  tobacco  and  at  the  same  time  keeping  up  the  fer- 
tility of  the  soil  by  growing  a cover  crop  and  two  leguminous 
crops  in  the  rotation  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  recommend 
such  a rotation.  By  growing  soybeans  for  hay  following  the 
corn  and  tobacco  crops  there  is  sufficient  time  for  getting  a 
good  growth  of  rye  before  turning  under  to  sow  soybeans 
which  are  usually  sown  during  the  latter  half  of  May  or  first 
of  June. 

If  not  enough  land  is  available  for  dividing  it  into  five 
tracts,  it  will  be  necessary  to  practice  a three  or  four  year 
rotation  such  as  the  following: 


Field  1st  Year  2nd  Year  3rd  Year 

No.  1 Corn  and  Wheat  Clover  and 

Tobacco  Timothy 

No.  2 Wheat  Clover  and  Corn  and 

Timothy  Tobacco 

No.  3 Clover  and  Corn  and  Wheat 

Timothy  Tobacco 


This  rotation  may  be  made  into  a four-year  rotation  by 
not  plowing  the  clover  and  timothy  sod  after  the  first  hay 
crop  but  leaving  it  for  a timothy  crop  the  second  year,  then 
plowing  for  tobacco  and  corn,  one-half  of  the  field  being 
devoted  to  corn  and  the  other  half  to  tobacco  as  in  the  five- 
year  rotation.  While  this  rotation  does  not  provide  a green 
manuring  crop  nor  a second  nitrogen-gathering  crop  as  in  the 
first  rotation,  it  is  far  better  than  no  definite  rotation.  The 
fertility  of  the  soil  can  be  maintained  or  increased  by  making 
liberal  use  of  high  grade  fertilizers  and  by  utilizing  all  of  the 
farm  manure  produced  on  the  place. 

Tobacco  growers  must  avoid  growing  corn  after  tobacco 
or  tobacco  after  corn  as  these  two  cultivated  crops  are  entirely 
too  hard  on  the  land  when  following  each  other,  and  it  will 
be  necessary  either  to  leave  out  one  of  these  from  the  rotation 
or  to  divide  the  area  of  the  field  between  them.  Many  farm- 
ers believe  that  tobacco  is  harder  on  land  than  any  other  crop, 
but  the  bad  practice  of  following  no  definite  rotation  has  been 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


responsible  for  this  idea.  Corn  or  timothy  may  deplete  the 
soil  of  its  fertility  as  rapidly  as  tobacco  if  no  green  manuring 
or  leguminous  crops  are  in  the  rotation  in  which  they  are 
grown.  Tobacco,  being  a crop  capable  of.  bringing  in  large 
cash  returns,  so  tempts  farmers  to  grow  it  often  on  the  same 
land  that  the  fertility  question  is  overlooked. 

The  best  tobacco  soils  are  the  Huntington  silt  loam, 
Holston  silty  clay  loam,  Holston  silt  loam,  and  Tyler  silt 
loam.  The  Huntington  silt  loam  produces  the  best-paying 
crops  of  tobacco  and  extends  over  a larger  area  than  any  of 
the  other  soil  types  mentioned.  A typical  section  where  this 
soil  occurs  is  along  Beech  Fork  of  the  Twelvepole  Creek. 
The  Holston  silty  clay  loam  lies  along  the  Guyandotte  Valley 
Railroad  and  is  good  corn  and  tobacco  soil.  While  it  does 
not  extend  over  as  large  an  area  as  the  Holston  silt  loam,  the 
yield  and  quality  of  the  tobacco  grown  on  it  are  usually  better. 


A Type  of  Tobacco  Curing  Shed  too  Commonly  Used. 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


7 


VARIETIES. 

The  variety  grown  almost  exclusively  in  the  tobacco  sec- 
tions is  that  known  as  Lockwood’s  Burley.  There  is  no 
question  but  that  this  variety  has  given  excellent  re- 
sults in  the  past.  Owing  perhaps  to  the  lack  of  attention 
given  to  the  selection  of  seed  from  the  better  plants,  this 
variety  is  not  giving  a£'  high  a yield  of  the  best  quality  of  to- 
bacco as  it  formerly  did.  In  the  spring  of  1913  a variety  test 
was  conducted  at  Milton  which  included  eight  varieties, 
seven  of  which  were  secured  from  the  Kentucky  State  Ex- 
periment Station  and  the  other  being  Lockwood’s  Burley. 
The  plots  were  1-30  of  an  acre  in  size  and  Lockwood's 
Burley  was  grown  on  every  third  plot.  The  following  table 
gives  the  results  of  the  test : 

Yield  per  Acre 

Variety  Lbs.  per  Plot  Lbs. 

Hope’s  Standup  Burley 78.5  2355 

Holley’s  White  Burley 70.7  2121 

Renaker’s  Standup  Burley 77.3  2319 

Hisle’s  White  Burley 71.5  2145 

Station  Standup  Burley 55.8  1674 

Lockwood’s  Burley  46.5  1395 

Selection  of  White  Twist  Bud 71.0  2130 

Hullett’s  White  Burley 73.5  2205 

The  seed  of  these  varieties  was  not  sown  until  April  23, 
which  was  very  late  for  growing  good  plants.  This  was  due 
to  the  fact  that  plans  for  carrying  on  the  tobacco  tests  were 
not  completed  until  quite  late  in  the  spring.  The  plants  were 
transplanted  July  5 which  was  too  late  to  get  the  tobacco 
matured  properly.  The  result  was  that  considerable  damage 
was  done  to  the  tobacco  in  the  barn  by  an  early  freeze  in  the 
fall.  Two  or  three  of  the  varieties  tested  gave  promise  of 
proving  superior  to  Lockwood’s  Burley  in  quality  as  well 
as  in  yield. 

CULTURAL  DIRECTIONS. 

There  is  no  definite  time  for  sowing  tobacco  seed  any 
further  than  to  say  that  it  may  be  sown  either  in  winter  or  in 
spring,  and  it  is  undecided  which  is  the  better  time.  In  fact, 
winter  sowing  will  suit  one  farmer  while  spring  sowing  will 
suit  another.  One  advantage  in  sowing  in  the  winter  is  to  get 
the  work  done  before  spring  is  at  hand  because  in  spring 
farmers  are  usually  very  busy  and  are  more  likely  to  neglect 
putting  their  seed  beds  in  proper  condition.  In  winter  the 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


ground  is  wet  and  more  burning  is  required,  so  the  gain  is 
about  equal  to  the  loss.  Good  plants  may  be  had,  though, 
either  from  winter  or  spring  sowing,  but  spring  sowing  should 
not  be  later  than  the  last  of  March. 

The  plant  bed  should  be  made  in  some  good  fertile  place 
having  good  drainage  and  being  well  exposed  to  the  sun.  It 
is  best  to  find  some  place  in  the  woods  where  the  soil  is  loose 
and  friable.  This  soil  usually  has  enough  decayed  vegetable 
matter  and  is  also  handy  to  plenty  of  wood,  shrubbery,  brush, 
etc.  which  may  be  used  for  burning. 

The  main  object  in  burning  a tobacco  bed  is  to  kill  in- 
sects, and  weed  and  grass  seeds  that  may  be  in  the  soil.  A 
good  method  is  to  lay  small  poles  or  skids  over  the  area  to  be 
burned,  at  intervals  of  from  three  to  four  feet,  and  then  to 
pile  brush  and  dry  wood  on  one  end  of  the  skids.  After 
setting  fire  to  the  brush  the  burning  material  is  pulled  for- 
ward a few  feet  on  the  skids  whenever  the  soil  becomes  suffi- 
ciently heated  and  sterilized  to  a depth  of  two  or  three  inches. 
It  will  be  necessary  to  pile  more  brush  on  from  time  to  time 
in  order  to  get  the  soil  evenly  burned.  After  removing  all 
debris,  the  soil  is  thoroughly  spaded  to  a depth  of  four  or  five 
inches.  Before  seeding,  a fertilizer  consisting  of  5 pounds  of 
dried  blood  and  2 pounds  of  acid  phosphate  for  each  100 
square  feet  of  bed  is  to  be  worked  into  the  soil.  The  rate  of 
sowing  should  be  a level  teaspoonful  of  seed  to  100  square  feet 
of  bed.  If  sown  too  thick,  the  plants  will  be  tall  and  spindl- 
ing, while  if  sown  too  thin  they  will  be  too  short  for  setting 
and  getting  desirable  results.  After  seeding,  the  bed  should 
be  covered  with  canvas  to  protect  it  from  cold  winds.  The 
canvas  should  be  allowed  to  remain  till  a week  or  ten  days 
before  time  for  setting.  It  can  then  be  removed  in  order 
that  the  plants  may  harden  before  being  taken  up  for  trans- 
planting ; otherwise,  the  hot  sun  might  kill  the  young  tender 
plants. 

PREPARATION  OF  SOIL. 

The  ground  intended  for  tobacco  should  be  plowed  in 
the  fall,  if  there  is  no  danger  of  washing,  especially  if  it  is 
sod  land  or  land  on  which  weeds  have  been  allowed  to  grow. 
If  it  is  newly  cleared  land  or  land  free  from  dry  vegetation,  it 
may  be  plowed  early  in  the  spring  and  the  results  obtained 
will  be  satisfactory. 

Sufficient  time  after  plowing  is  needed  to  get  the  ground 
in  a fine  tilth,  so  as  to  give  the  best  possible  conditions  for 
starting  the  plants  to  growing  rapidly.  The  principal  reason 
why  sod  land  should  be  plowed  in  the  fall  is  to  give  the  sod 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


9 


time  to  rot.  and  also  to  kill  insects  that  might  prove  injurious 
to  the  young  tobacco  plants.  Early  in  the  spring  the  land 
should  be  pulverized  thoroughly  by  cultivating  with  a disk 
harrow  and  dragging  with  a peg  tooth  harrow.  Sometimes 
it  is  necessary  that  the  ground  be  re-broken  before  harrowing 
and  dragging.  The  next  step  is  laying  off  the  ground.  This, 
however,  will  be  discussed  under  the  subject  of  transplanting. 


A Good  Type  of  Air  Curing  Tobacco  Barn. 

FERTILIZERS. 

The  fertilizer  requirements  of  different  soils  for  growing 
good  tobacco  vary  considerably,  due  to  the  way  the  soil  has 
been  handled  in  previous  years.  The  amount  of  plant  food 
constituents  required  for  a tobacco  crop  of  1000  pounds  per 
acre  including  stalks  is  as  follows: 


Nitrogen  ....46  lbs. 

Phosphoric  acid 8 “ 

Potash  35  “ 


These  figures  show  that  the  tobacco  plant  uses  a relative- 
ly small  amount  of  phosphoric  acid,  yet  it  has  proved  profit- 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


able  to  apply  a fertilizer  relatively  high  in  this  plant  food  con- 
stituent. This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  phosphorus  in  West  Vir- 
ginia soils  is  in  combination  with  elements  which  form  in- 
soluble compounds  and  unless  some  available  phosphorus  is 
applied  the  maximum  production  will  not  be  attained.  What 
has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  available  supply  of  phosphorus 
applies  also  to  potassium.  While  West  Virginia  soils  contain 
large  quantities  of  potash  compounds,  crops  requiring  relative- 
ly large  amounts  of  this  plant  food  constituent  cannot  secure 
their  requirements.  This  deficiency  of  availably  potash  is 
probably  due  to  the  lack  of  decaying  vegetable  matter  and 
lime  in  the  soil.  The  system  of  farming  followed  in  the  to- 
bacco districts  did  not  provide  for  a leguminous  or  green 
manuring  crop  and  consequently  the  soils  have  been  robbed 
of  their  nitrogen  to  such  an  extent  that  it  will  not  be  profitable 
to  farm  them  until  organic  matter  and  nitrogen  are  restored. 

The  fertilizer  work  that  has  been  carried  on  for  the  last 
three  years  has  not  been  entirely  satisfactory,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  not  possible  to  lease  sufficient  land  from 
farmers  for  a period  of  years  so  that  a definite  rotation  could 
be  carried  out.  Since  a different  area  of  land  at  each  place 
had  to  be  rented  every  year,  all  plots  were  either  duplicated 
or  repeated  four  times  at  each  location  in  order  to  make  the 
work  as  accurate  as  possible.  The  following  table  gives  the 
results  of  two  years’  test  at  Hurricane.  No  work  was  done 
at  Hurricane  during  1915. 


Fertilizing  Materials 

Acid 

Phosphate 
Per  Acre 

Nitrate  of 
Soda 
Per  Acre 

Sulphate  of 
Potash 
Per  Acre 

Yields  in 
Lbs. 

Per  Acre 

No  fertilizer  

745 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phos- 
and  Sulphate  of  Potash 

i 200 

125 

80 

967 

Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate 
of  Potash  

■ o 
' o 

1 CO 

100 

897 

Local  fertilizer,  .82-8-4,  400  lbs. 
per  acre  

807 

Nitrate  of  Soda.... 

300 

870 

Sulphate  of  Potash 

300 

800 

Acid  Phosphate  

300 

765 

Barnyard  manure,  10  tons 
per  acre  

1045 

The  soil  on  which  this  fertilizer  test  was  conducted  is 
known  as  the  Tyler  silt  loam  which  is  rather  a heavy  soil, 
often  greatly  in  need  of  drainage.  Due  to  the  way  in  which 
this  soil  has  been  handled  in  the  past,  it  appears  to  be  greatly 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


11 


in  need  of  nitrogen  but  with  the  addition  of  both  acid  phos- 
phate and  sulphate  of  potash  a considerable  increase  in  the 
yield  of  tobacco  was  secured.  Manure  has  given  the  best  re- 
sults of  all  fertilizing  materials  applied.  Not  many  tobacco 
farmers  keep  any  more  livestock  on  their  farms  than  is  neces- 
sary to  farm  their  land  and  furnish  milk  for  the  home.  The 
most  common  fertilizer  used  is  one  analyzing  one  percent  am- 
monia, eight  percent  phosphoric  acid  and  four  percent  potash, 
costing  $25.00  per  ton  two  years  ago.  It  has  given  only  a 
slight  increase  in  yield,  due  perhaps  to  the  low  percentage  of 
nitrogen  which  it  carries. 

The  results  of  the  fertilizer  test  at  Milton  are  shown  in 
the  following  table.  Ground  limestone  was  applied  to  one- 
half  of  all  the  plots  at  the  rate  of  2000  pounds  per  acre. 


Fertilizing  Materials 

Acid 

Phosphate 
Per  Acre 

Nitrate  of 
Soda 
Per  Acre 

Sulphate  of 
Potash 
Per  Acre 

Manure 
Tons 
Per  Acre 

Yields  in 
Lbs. 

Per  Acre 

No  fertilizer  

1287 

Acid  Phosphate,  Ni- 
trate of  Soda  and 
Sulphate  of  Potash 
Manure  

200 

100 

100 



! 1580 

8 

1440 

Acid  Phosphate,  Ni- 
trate of  Soda  and 
Sulphate  of  Potash 
Acid  Phosphate  and 
Sulphate  of  Potash 
Nitrate  of  Soda  and 
Sulphate  of  Potash 

1 J60 

60 

1 

80 

1570 

1 

300 

100 

1370 

225 

1 

175 

| 

1405 

1 

! 

Lime  alone  did  not  increase  the  yield  of  tobacco  but  the 
limed  halves  of  the  plots  receiving  fertilizers  produced  126 
pounds  per  acre  more  than  the  halves  receiving  no  lime. 

In  addition  to  the  regular  fertilizer  work  at  Milton  in 
1914,  one  acre  of  land  was  rented  for  the  purpose  of  determin- 
ing the  net  profit  from  growing  tobacco  where  a high  grade 
mixed  fertilizer  was  applied  at  the  rate  of  700  pounds  per  acre 
and  the  necessary  cultivations  given  to  the  tobacco.  The 
fertilizing  materials  applied  were  300  pounds  of  acid  phos- 
phate, 200  pounds  of  nitrate  of  soda  and  200  pounds  of  sul- 
phate of  potash. 

Fertilizer  tests  have  been  carried  on  in  the  Guyandotte 
Valley  in  both  Cabell  and  Lincoln  counties,  on  the  Holston 
silty  clay  loam  soil  which  is  recognized  by  all  tobacco  grow- 
ers as  being  perhaps  the  best  soil  type  for  raising  Burley 

tobacco. 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


The  first  two  years’  test,  indicating  the  fertilizing  ma- 
terials applied  and  the  results  obtained,  is  shown  in  the  fol- 
lowing table : 


Acid 

Nitrate  of 

Sulphate  of 

Yields  in 

Fertilizing  Materials 

Phosphate 

Soda 

Potash 

Lbs. 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

No  fertilizer  

1073 

Acid  Phosphate,  Nitrate  of 

Soda  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
Local  fertilizer,  .82-8-4,  400  lbs. 

200 

100 

100 

1325 

per  acre  

1116 

Acid  Phosphate,  Nitrate  of 

Soda  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate 

| 260 

60 

80 

1265 

of  Potash  

300 

100 

1250 

| 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Acid 

Phosphate  

175 

225 

1290 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Sulphate 

of  Potash  

225 

175 

1280 

Nitrate  of  Soda  

300 

1260 

Acid  Phosphate  

300 

1190 

1 



1 

An  Inexpensive  Curing  Barn  with  Good  Ventilation. 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


13 


Nitrogen  seems  to  be  the  controlling  element  since  the 
yield  of  tobacco  on  this  type  of  soil  was  either  high  or  low, 
depending  upon  the  amount  of  nitrogen  that  was  applied.  A 
fertilizer  with  a relatively  high  percent  of  phosphorus,  as 
compared  with  potassium,  will  no  doubt  pay  better  on  this 
soil  than  the  reverse  as  indicated  by  the  yield  of  tobacco,  and 
especially  would  this  conclusion  be  reached  if  grain  were 
grown  in  rotation  with  tobacco  on  this  soil  type. 

In  1915  the  plan  of  the  tobacco  fertilizer  test  on  this  soil 
type  was  changed  and  the  different  fertilizing  materials  were 
applied  in  sufficient  amounts  so  that  no  one  material  would 
be  lacking  for  a maximum  yield.  All  plots  were  repeated  four 
times  with  every  fifth  one  a check  plot. 


Acid 

Nitrate  of 

Sulphate  of 

Yields  in 

Fertilizing  Materials 

Phosphate 

Soda 

Potash 

Lbs. 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

Per  Acre 

No  fertilizer  

1360 

Acid  Phosphate  

500 

1410 

Acid  Phosphate  and  Nitrate 

of  Soda  

500 

250 

1700 

Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate 

of  Potash  

500 

200 

1475 

Acid  Phosphate,  Nitrate  of 

Soda  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 

500 

250 

200 

1710 

Acid  Phosphate,  Dried  Blood 

and  Sulphate  of  Potash 

Acid  Phosphate,  Nitrate  of 

500 

250* 

200 

1650 

Soda,  Sulphate  of  Potash 
and  Limef  

500 

250 

200 

1700 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Sulphate 

of  Potash  

250 

200 

1590 

*Dried  blood. 

tLime,  2000  lbs.  per  acre. 


In  1914  one  acre  of  land  was  set  aside  at  Milton  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  the  approximate  cost  of  growing 
tobacco  when  a high  grade  fertilizer  was  applied  at  the  rate 
of  700  pounds  per  acre.  Ground  limestone  was  applied  at  the 
rate  of  one  ton  per  acre  and  a fertilizer  mixture  of  200  pounds 
sodium  nitrate,  300  pounds  acid  phosphate  and  200  pounds 
potassium  sulphate  was  used  on  the  acre  of  land.  It  would 
perhaps  have  been  better  if  tankage  or  dried  blood  had  been 
used  as  the  carrier  of  nitrogen  in  order  to  produce  a leaf  of 
finer  texture. 


14  W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


Yield  of  tobacco  secured  on  one  acre 1640  pounds 

Weight  after  reaching  market 1610  “ 

Cash  received  from  Huntington  Tobacco  Warehouse  Co $98.65 

Cost  of  growing  and  marketing  tobacco 66.40 

Net  returns  for  one  acre $32.25 


The  following  itemized  expense  account  shows  the  cost 
of  different  operations  in  growing  the  tobacco: 


Preparing  plant  bed — 1 day $ 1.50 

Breaking — y2  day  @ $3.00 *• 1.50 

Disking — y2  day 1.50 

Spreading  lime  and  dragging 1.50 

Applying  fertilizer — *4  day 75 

Cost  of  fertilizer 12.00 

Cost  of  lime 4.00 

Transplanting — 2 men,  1 day 3.00 

Cultivating  four  times — 1 horse,  1 day 2.50 

Hoeing  two  times — 2 days 3.00 

Topping,  worming  and  suckering 4.50 

Cutting  and  housing — 2 men,  2 days 7.50 

Stripping  and  grading — 3 men,  4 y2  days 20.25 

Hauling  to  market — 2 men,  y2  day 3.00 


Total  cost  $66.50 


No  doubt  some  of  these  items  cost  more  than  they 
would  cost  the  average  farmer,  but  the  net  returns  show  that 
where  lime  and  a liberal  application  of  a high  grade  fertilizer 
were  used  a good  profit  was  secured,  and  the  land  was  kept  in 
a fairly  rich  condition.  In  fertilizing  Burley  tobacco  some 
attention  should  be  given  to  the  carrier  of  nitrogen.  In  other 
states,  fertilizer  tests  show  that  inorganic  carriers  of  nitrogen 
produce  tobacco  having  a coarser  texture  than  do  organic 
carriers.  So  far  no  coarseness  of  leaf  has  been  noticed  with 
nitrate  of  soda  on  soils  of  West  Virginia,  but  further  tests 
may  give  different  results.  The  tobacco  on  each  plot  of  the 
1915  test  was  valued  by  a tobacco  buyer  but  very  little  varia- 
tion existed  between  the  different  plots.  The  tobacco  grown 
with  complete  fertilizer  with  nitrate  of  soda  as  .the  carrier  of 
nitrogen  averaged  one  cent  per  pound  higher  than  that  grown 
with  dried  blood  as  the  carrier  of  nitrogen,  due  to  the  fact 
that  there  was  a larger  percent  of  bright  leaf  produced  on  the 
nitrate  of  soda  plot. 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


15 


TRANSPLANTING. 

When  the  young  plants  have  grown  about  five  inches 
high,  they  are  ready  for  transplanting.  They  should  be  trans- 
planted in  rows  about  3^2  feet  apart,  and  spaced  about  18 
inches  in  the  row.  These  distances,  however,  are  determined 
largely  by  the  soil  on  which  the  tobacco  is  to  be  grown.  If  the 
soil  is  very  fertile  the  plants  may  be  set  closer,  while  on  a very 
thin  soil,  they  may  be  given  more  room.  For  fertile  soils, 
close  setting  tends  to  produce  tobacco  with  a thin  silky  leaf 
which  will  cure  brighter  than  it  would  otherwise.  In  setting 
small  plants,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  bruise  them  or  to  de- 
stroy the  plants.  In  setting,  a good  method  is  as  follows: 
mark  the  rows  off  first  and  then  drag  a chain,  roll  a wheel- 
barrow or  use  some  similar  device  across  the  rows,  making 
the  tracks  the  distance  apart  that  you  wish  to  have  the  plants. 
Then  set  one  row  on  the  checks  or  crosses  and  the  next  be- 
tween the  crosses  and  so  on.  This  method  gives  all  rows  the 
same  number  of  plants  and  also  gives  them  an  even  distribu- 
tion. It  is  not  a good  idea  to  “guess”  at  the  distances,  especial- 
ly when  more  than  one  man  is  setting  the  plants,  as  this  is 
sure  to  cause  irregularity. 

In  two  or  three  days  after  the  plants  have  been  set,  the 
field  should  be  gone  over  and  any  plants  that  have  died  may 
be  replaced  by  fresh  ones.  This  operation  should  be  repeated 
the  following  week,  since  it  is  essential  to  have,  as  nearly  as 
possible,  a perfect  stand. 


CULTIVATION  OF  PLANTS. 

.About  the  time  the  plants  have  started  to  grow,  the  field 
should  be  given  a shallow  but  thorough  cultivation.  This 
operation  should  be  repeated  at  least  once  a week  until  the 
plants  have  reached  such  growth  that  cultivating  will  injure 
them,  or  until  the  plants  are  about  ready  to  be  topped.  The 
cultivation  of  tobacco  should  always  be  thorough  but  shal- 
low. Keep  the  top  of  the  soil  worked  into  a good  loose 
mulch,  and  go  over  the  field  occasionally  with  a hoe  and  cut 
out  any  weeds  or  bunches  of  grass  that  may  have  been 
missed  while  cultivating. 


16 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


TOPPING. 

When  about  half  of  the  plants  have  begun  to  develop 
seed  heads,  or  bloom  out,  the  field  is  ready  to  be  gone  over 
and  topped.  This  process  consists  simply  in  breaking  the  tops 
out  so  that  the  leaves  will  become  larger  and  more  fully  de- 
veloped. The  number  of  leaves  to  be  left  on  the  plant  is  to  be 
determined  by  the  man  doing  the  topping.  He  must  be  able 
to  judge  each  and  every  plant  and  he  should  top  the  plants  so 
as  to  make  them,  as  nearly  as  possible,  mature  at  the  same 
time.  Topping  is  a very  important  part  of  tobacco  culture, 
because  topping  too  low  will  cause  the  leaves  to  be  coarse 
and  thick,  and  topping  too  high  will  cause  them  to  fall  short 
of  their  growth.  Uneven  topping  will  cause  uneven  ripening 
in  the  field,  thus  making  harvesting  tedious  and  giving  trouble 
all  the  way  through. 


An  Ideal  Type  of  Barn  for  Air  Curing,  with  Ventilators  Along  the 
Peak  of  the  Roof,  Adapted  to  the  Use  of  Heat  in  Curing. 


SELECTION  OF  SEED  PLANTS. 

In  selecting  seed  plants,  close  attention  should  be  given 
to  all  the  points  that  go  to  make  up  the  ideal  plant,  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  which  the  grower  should  have  clearly  in 
mind.  The  largest  plants  in  the  richest  part  of  the  field  are 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


17 


not  necessarily  best  for  seed  purposes.  In  order  to  have 
pure  strains  of  seed,  it  is  necessary  to  cover  the  seed  head 
during  the  blossoming  period  so  as  to  prevent  mixing  or 
crossing  with  inferior  plants  or  suckers  due  to  the  passing  of 
insects  from  flower  to  flower  on  different 
plants.  For  this  purpose  an  ordinary  light 
weight  but  strong  paper  bag  of  about  the  12- 
pound  size  is  satisfactory.  The  bag  should 
have  small  perforations  made  so  as  to  give  the 
seed  head  air.  These  perforations  can  be 
easily  made  with  a sewing  machine,  the  thread 
having  first  been  removed  from  the  needle.  The 
seed  head  should  be  bagged  a day  or  two  be- 
fore the  first  flowers  have  opened.  The  bag 
should  be  left  on  about  three  weeks  and  may 
then  be  removed  so  as  to  allow  the  seed  to  ma- 
ture in  the  sun.  Care  should  be  taken  to  keep 
all  blooms  plucked  out  after  the  bags  have 
been  removed.  A record  of  each  seed  plant 
and  of  each  seed  head  should  be  kept,  because 
after  tobacco-  has  been  cured  it  may  be  that 
some  plants  will  have  more  desirable  fea- 
tures than  others. 

After  the  seed  has  become  thoroughly 
dry,  it  should  be  shelled  out,  cleaned,  and 
graded  in  a tobacco  seed  grader.  The  grader  is 
a very  simple  device 
consisting  of  a long 
glass  tube,  connect- 
ed to  a foot  bellows 
by  means  of  a small 
rubber  hose.  In  the 
bottom  of  the  glass, 
is  fixed  a wire  gauze 
to  keep  the  seed 

from  running  Device  for  Cleaning  Tobacco  Seed, 

through.  The  grad- 
ing is  done  by  putting  the  seed  into  the  glass  tube  and  by  air 
pressure,  blowing  the  light  and  immature  seed  over  the  top 
of  the  glass,  leaving  only  the  strong  heavy  seed  in  the  tube. 
This  machine  will  clean  about  one  ounce  of  seed  at  a time, 
and  it  will  take  about  five  minutes  to  clean  each  ounce.  There 
is  no  danger  of  mixing  seed  as  only  a smooth  glass  tube  con- 
tains the  seed,  and  after  cleaning  one  lot,  the  seeds  are  all 
poured  out  and  the  tube  well  cleaned  before  putting  in  any 
more. 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


HARVESTING. 

Only  two  methods  of  harvesting  tobacco  are  employed 
in  this  state.  In  one  method  the  plant  is  split  to  within  about 
six  inches  of  the  ground  and  is  then  cut  and  placed  astride  a 
stick  and  left  in  the  field  until  wilted.  In  some  cases,  the  stick 
is  stuck  into  the  ground,  while  in  others  it  is  left  flat  on  the 
ground,  but  in  either  case  the  tobacco  is  allowed  to  wilt  be- 
fore being  hauled  to  the  barn.  In  the  second  method  the 


Showing  Method  of  Spudding  Tobacco. 


tobacco  is  handled  in  much  the  same  way  except  instead  of 
splitting  the  stalk,  it  is  first  cut  and  then  forced  on  the  stick 
by  the  use  of  a sharp  spear  called  a “spud.”  The  “spud”  is 
about  eight  inches  long  and  is  made  to  slip  down  over  the 
end  of  the  stick,  the  latter,  of  course,  first  being  sharpened. 
This  method  is  spoken  of  as  “spudding.”  It  is  difficult  to  say 
just  which  method  is  the  better,  though  it  is  an  evident  fact 
that  a plant  that  has  been  split  will  cure  more  quickly  than 
one  that  has  been  spudded,  and  will  no  doubt  give  better 
results  for  late  cutting.  One  method  is  about  as  rapid  as  the 
other. 

The  sticks  upon  which  the  tobacco  is  placed  are  usually 
four  or  four  and  one-half  feet  long,  and  will  hold  from  five  to 


June,  1916] 


WHITE  BURLEY  TOBACCO 


19 


eight  plants  of  tobacco,  the  number  being  determined  by  the 
size  of  the  plants.  After  the  tobacco  has  wilted  enough  so 
that  it  can  be  handled  without  breaking,  it  is  hauled  to  the 
barn  and  hung  on  the  tier  poles,  the  sticks  being  placed  about 
12  inches  apart.  Care  should  be  taken  in  hanging  the  tobacco 
in  the  barn.  The  plants  should  be  well  spaced  on  the  sticks, 
and  the  leaves  all  left  to  hang  as  free  as  possible.  It  is  a good 
idea  to  shake  the  stalks  well.  This  shaking  will  separate  any 
leaves  that  may  be  stuck  together,  thus  preventing  them  from 
probable  house-burning. 


CURING. 

There  are  too  many  changes  that  take  place  in  curing  to- 
bacco to  try  to  describe  the  process  in  full  detail,  but  the  sub- 
ject is  so  important  that  it  should  be  given  some  considera- 
tion. The  prime  requisite  for  curing  tobacco  properly  is  to 
have  a good  barn  and  to  have  it  well  ventilated.  Have  the 
doors  and  windows  closed  at  night  and  on  foggy  days.  During 
rainy  weather  when  the  air  in  the  barn  becomes  saturated  with 
moisture  it  may  be  necessary  to  build  fires  under  the  .tobacco 
in  order  to  prevent  damage  by  house-burn.  The  common  open 
curing  shed  as  used  in  this  state  should  be  displaced  by  good 
closed  barns  with  windows  and  ventilators  in  them.  With 
poorly  constructed  curing  sheds  a grower  has  no  control  over 
unfavorable  weather  conditions  and  the  tobacco  may  be  con- 
siderably damaged  in  the  process  of  curing,  thus  reducing  its 
value  greatly.  When  weather  conditions  are  favorable,  to- 
bacco can  be  cured  very  well  in  open  sheds,  but  such  condi- 
tions cannot  be  depended  upon.  Tobacco  in  an  open  shed  will 
damage  after  having  been  cured.  A well  ventilated  barn  could 
be  built  for  an  amount  of  money  equal  to  that  lost  by  the  open 
curing  shed  in  two  or  three  crops.  Such  a barn  need  not  be 
expensive,  as  has  been  shown  by  some  good  growers. 


STRIPPING  AND  GRADING. 

When  tobacco  is  thoroughly  cured  it  is  ready  for  strip- 
ping but  it  is  better,  before  stripping,  to  allow  it  to  go  through 
one  or  two  freezes.  This,  however,  may  prevent  early  strip- 
ping which  in  some  cases  may  be  necessary.  Consequently, 
it  cannot  always  be  allowed  to  freeze  before  stripping. 

Stripping  and  grading  tobacco  is  a very  particular  part 
of  tobacco  production  and  should  be  given  the  closest 
possible  attention.  Tobacco  is  graded  into  the  following 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR'L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  152 


grades:  “Flyings,”  “Trash,”  “Lugs,”  “Bright  Leaf,”  “Red 
Leaf,”  “Tips,”  and  “Green”  or  “Damaged.” 

The  grades  should  be  evenly  classed  while  tying;  all  long 
leaves  should  be  tied  separately  from  the  short  ones.  This 
will  make,  from  each  grade,  two  or  three  sub-grades.  It 
is  only  necessary,  however,  to  keep  the  grades  separate. 
Farmers  often  do  not  understand  why  their  tobacco  does  not 
bring  the  same  price  as  their  neighbors’  when  their  tobacco  is 
of  equal  quality,  but  this  state  of  affairs  is  easily  answered 
after  examining  the  tobacco  of  the  different  growers  as  placed 
on  the  market.  It  may  be  seen  that  one  grower  has  graded  and 
classed  his  tobacco  more  carefully,  making  his  better  grades 
show  off  to  better  advantage  and  thus  obtaining  a higher 
price  for  them. 


SUMMARY. 

1.  The  value  of  the  tobacco  sold  in  this  state  amounts  to 
more  than  a half  million  dollars. 

2.  Tobacco  growers  should  follow  a definite  rotation  in 
which  a winter  cover  crop  and  a legume  are  provided. 

3.  Introduced  varieties  of  White  Burley  grown  from  se- 
lected seed  give  promise  of  proving  superior  to  the  standard 
variety  that  is  grown  in  all  the  tobacco  districts  of  the  state. 

4.  Nitrogen  influences  the  yields  of  tobacco  on  the  soils 
of  this  state  more  than  does  either  potash  or  phosphoric  acid. 

5.  A combination  of  all  three  plant  food  constituents 
produced  the  highest  average  yield  of  tobacco  and  an  appli- 
cation of  about  700  pounds  of  a high  grade  fertilizer  contain- 
ing not  less  than  4 % of  nitrogen  was  profitable. 

6.  To  secure  good  seed,  the  blooms  should  be  grown  un- 
der paper  bags  on  carefully  selected  plants  and  when  har- 
vested the  seed  should  be  graded  with  a tobacco  seed  grader. 

7.  The  common  open  tobacco  curing  sheds  used  in  this 
state  are  a cause  of  poorly  cured  tobacco.  They  should  be 
replaced  by  closed,  well  ventilated  tobacco  barns  which  need 
not  be  expensive. 

8.  Stripping  and  grading  tobacco  require  very  careful 
attention,  and  well  graded  tobacco  will  command  much 
higher  prices  than  the  same  tobacco  poorly  graded. 


August,  1915 


Bulletin  153 


OTeg t liXirgtnia  UntPersitp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  FARM  MANAGEMENT 

AN  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 

OP 

BROOKE  COUNTY 


BY 

O.  M.  JOHNSON  and  A.  J.  DADISMAN 


The  Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station.  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 
THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President .Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial 
and  business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  State  Superintendent  of  Schools, 


President  Charleston,  W.  Va. 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  B.  TROTTER,  LL.D., Acting  President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  Ph.D 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

I.  S.  COOK.  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

*0.  M.  JOHNSON,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  M.S.  Agr 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

tL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHUIS  - KRAK,  B.Sc.. 

J.  P.  BONARDI,  B.S 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  R.  JEFFRIES,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

*A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

*E.  A.  TUCKWILLER,  B.Sc.  Agr. 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.Sc.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.Sc.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  B.Sc.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.Sc.  Agr 

R.  M.  SALTER,  M.Sc 

O.  M.  KILE,  B.S.  Agr 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Horticulturist 

Agronomist 

Research  Entomologist 

Farm  Management 

Animal  Husbandry 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Soil  Investigations 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

..In  Charge  of  Cattle  Investigation 

Forester 

Dairy  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

- Assistant  Soils  Chemist 

Editor 


*In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


1 — A well  built  barn.  2 — Planting  soybeans.  3 — An  alfalfa  field.  4 — Pre- 
paring land  for  alfalfa.  5 — There  are  many  good  brick  houses  in  Brooke  County 
built  fifty  or  more  years  ago. 


An  Agricultural  Survey 
of  Brooke  County 


By  O.  M.  JOHNSON  and  A.  J.  DADISM AN. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  agriculture  of  any  region  is  generally  recognized  as 
one  of  the  important  industries.  The  continuous  success  of 
this  industry  will  depend  in  large  measure  upon  the  class  of 
people  that  is  attracted  to  it  in  the  future.  The  attractions 
of  any  occupation  are  both  social  and  economic  but  the  funda- 
mental importance  of  good  economic  conditions  is  not  likely 
to  be  over  estimated.  If  farming  is  to  attract  the  young  men 
of  the  country  it  must  yield  profits  sufficient  to  justify  their 
staying  on  the  farms.  Various  industrial  developments  m 
the  state  have  brought  opportunities  for  ambitious  young 
men,  however  agriculture  offers  a comfortable  living  to  more 
people  than  do  most  other  lines  of  endeavor. 

The  1910  census  figures  show  that  62.2  percent  of  the 
land  area  of  West  Virginia  is  in  farms  About  one-third  of 
the  state  is  in  timber  land  ; this  area  is  largely  mountainous. 
A large  part  of  the  state  is  made  up  of  broad  rolling  hills 
more  suited  to  grazing  than  to  cultivation  but  there  are  many 
fertile  valleys  among  the  hills  which  make  up  the  best  agri- 
cultural lands  of  the  state.  The  mineral  wealth  has  had  a 
great  influence  on  agriculture  in  much  of  the  state.  The  in- 
dustrial development  during  the  last  fifty  years  has  given 
many  farm  owners  an  income  sufficient  to  reduce  the  incentive 
to  work  their  farms.  The  great  diversity  of  conditions  in  the 
state  brings  about  many  farm  management  problems. 

Farm  management  treats  of  the  business  of  farming  with 
a view  to  making  the  farm  return  the  greatest  continuous 
profits.  The  purpose  of  the  Brooke  County  farm  management 
survey  was  to  determine  the  most  profitable  types  of  farming, 
the  status  of  agricultural  production,  and  the  methods  of 
farm  management  now  practiced  in  this  region.  If  a farm  is 
to  be  a business  success  it  must  pay  farm  expenses,  interest 
on  the  investment  and  wages  for  all  farm  labor.  The  success- 
ful farms  are  found  to  have  one  or  more  enterprises  which  are 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


conducted  in  such  a way  as  to  yield  a good  profit.  These 
profitable  enterprises,  however,  are  not  the  same  on  all  farms 
of  the  region  but  the  combination  of  enterprises  must  be 
organized  so  as  to  meet  the  individual  needs  of  each  farm. 


HOW  THE  SURVEY  WAS  MADE. 

In  the  summer  of  1914  the  Office  of  Farm  Management, 
of  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture,  co-operating  with  the  West  Virginia  Agricul- 
tural Experiment  Station  and  the  Pan  Handle  Agricultural 
Club  made  a farm  management  survey  of  Brooke  County, 
West  Virginia.  Agricultural  conditions  were  practically 
normal  in  the  county  that  year,  except  that  the  fruit  failed. 
This  county  was  selected  for  the  survey  because  it  is  typical 
of  the  northern  part  of  the  state  and  the  interest  of  the  Pan 
Handle  Agricultural  Club,*  an  organization  of  the  farmers  in 
the  county,  was  such  as  to  make  the  work  immediately  useful. 

A circular  letter  explaining  the  survey  was  sent  to  each 
farmer  for  the  purpose  of  acquainting  him  with  the  work. 
Each  farmer  was  visited  at  his  farm  and  asked  questions  from 
a blank  provided  for  the  purpose.  The  survey  was  made  by 
the  writers  and  Professor  A.  C.  Workman.  Farmers  were 
universally  courteous,  and  cheerfully  answered  all  questions 
in  so  far  as  they  could. 

Calculating  Results.  All  field  blanks  were  checked  and 
copied  by  the  men  who  took  the  records.  They  were  then 
checked  by  the  man  in  charge  of  the  field  party  and  again 
checked  in  the  office  at  Washington.  When  there  was  any 
doubt  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  record  the  farmer  was  visited 
the  second  time  or  additional  information  was  obtained  by 
mail.  The  results  of  this  survey  are  compiled  from  the 
records  of  201  farms. 


*Much  valuable  assistance  was  rendered  by  Professor  A.  C.  Workman,  a rep- 
resentative of  the  Pan  Handle  Agricultural  Club,  in  collecting  the  data.  Ac- 
knowledgement is  also  due  the  farmers  of  Brooke  County  who  made  this  study 
possible  by  their  interest  and  cooperation. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


7 


EXPLANATION  OF  TERMS  USED  IN 
THIS  REPORT. 

In  order  that  the  terms  used  in  this  discussion  may  be 
clear,  the  ones  which  might  not  be  understood  are  explained 
below.  Familiarity  with  these  terms  will  aid  in  interpreting 
the  results  given. 

The  Operator  is  the  person  who  plans  and  manages  the  opera- 
tions of  the  farm.  He  may  be  either  the  owner  or  tenant. 

The  Landlord  is  the  person  who  owns  the  farm  and  leases  it  to 
another. 

The  Tenant  is  the  person  who  operates  a farm  which  is  leased 
from  another  person. 

An  Inventory  is  a list  of  all  farm  property  on  hand  with  values 
assigned. 

Capital  is  the  amount  of  money  invested  in  land,  buildings,  mach- 
inery, stock,  supplies  and  cash  for  general  farm  expenses.  An  average 
of  the  values  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  year  is  the  capital 
for  the  year. 

Farm  Receipts  include  all  returns  from  sales  of  crops,  stock  and 
stock  products,  from  labor  and  other  miscellaneous  sources,  and 
from  the  increase  in  inventory. 

Farm  Expenses  include  all  sums  paid  out  for  the  support  of  the 
farm  business  such  as  stock,  feed,  repairs,  improvements,  machinery, 
taxes,  etc.,  and  any  decrease  in  inventory. 

Farm  Income  is  the  difference  between  the  farm  receipts  and  ex- 
penses. It  is  the  amount  that  the  farmer  and  his  capital  earn. 

Labor  Income  is  the  amount  which  the  farmer  receives  for  his 
labor  and  managing  ability.  It  is  found  by  deducting  interest  at  5 
percent  on  the  capital,  from  the  farm  income.  In  addition  to  the 
labor  income  the  farm  furnishes  a house  to  live  in  and  farm  products 
such  as  meat,  butter,  eggs,  vegetables  and  flour  for  home  use. 

Crop  Index  is  a number  used  for  comparing  the  yields  of  crops 
grown  on  a given  farm  with  the  average  yield  of  the  region.  The 
average  yield  is  represented  by  100. 

A Labor  Unit  for  a horse  or  man  represents  approximately  an 
average  day’s  work. 

An  Animal  Unit  represents  one  horse,  cow  or  the  equivalent  in 
other  stock,  based  upon  the  amount  of  feed  eaten. 

A Farm  includes  all  the  land  operated  by  one  man.  It  may  be 
owned,  rented,  or  partly  owned  and  the  remainder  rented.  Usually 
the  land  is  in  one  tract  but  it  may  be  in  two  or  more. 

Family  Income  is  the  sum  of  the  farm  income  and  the  value  of 
the  family  labor. 

Man  Equivalent  represents  the  number  of  men  that  would  be  re- 
quired to  do  the  work  of  the  farm,  if  they  work  the  entire  year.  The 
work  is  not  distributed  over  the  entire  year,  much  more  of  it  is  done 
in  some  months  than  in  others.  The  farmer’s  time  is  considered  as 
twelve  months. 


Map  showing  location  of  Brooke  County,  distribution  of  farms  surveyed,  roads* 

streams  and  towns. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


9 


DESCRIPTION  OF  BROOKE  COUNTY. 

Brooke  County,  West  Virginia,  is  in  what  is  known  as 
the  Northern  Pan  Handle  of  the  state.  The  county  has  an 
area  of  87  square  miles  and  a population  of  about  11,100. 
The  land  is  generally  rolling  to  hilly  and  intersected  by  many 
ravines.  There  are  narrow  bottoms  at  intervals  along  the 
Ohio  River  but  much  of  the  river  is  bordered  by  steep  hills. 
There  is  but  very  little  bottom  land  along  the  smaller  streams. 
This  county  is  part  of  an  ancient  upland  plain  which  has 
been  dissected  by  ages  of  erosion.  In  some  parts  of  the 
county  there  are  small  areas  of  coal  and  petroleum.  Pract- 
ically all  of  the  original  forests  have  been  removed  and  the 
land  which  is  not  too  steep  is  being  cultivated  or  used  for 
pasture. 

The  climate  is  well  suited  to  carrying  on  general  farm- 
ing. The  average  date  of  the  last  killing  frost  in  spring  is 
about  April  11,  and  the  first  in  the  fall  about  October  26th, 
thus  the  growing  season  is  approximately  200  days.  The 
average  annual  rainfall  is  almost  40  inches,  more  than  a pro- 
portional part  of  which  falls  in  June  and  July. 

The  soil  of  95  percent  of  the  county  is  a clay  loam.  Along 
the  steams  there  is  some  rough  stony  land  which  can  hardly 
be  called  a soil  type. 

The  chief  crops  are  corn,  oats,  wheat,  rye,  hay  and  truck 
crops.  On  some  farms  fruit  growing  is  of  considerable  im- 
portance. Sheep  and  dairy  cattle  are  the  chief  livestock  grown. 

The  principal  towns  are  Wellsburg  and  Follansbee,  the 
population  of  the  two  numbering  about  7,000.  Wheeling  and 
Steubenville,  nearby  cities  having  a combined  population  of 
nearly  70,000,  afford  good  markets. 

The  shipping  facilities  afforded  by  the  Ohio  River,  Penn- 
sylvania and  Wabash  Railroads,  and  trolley  lines,  are  very 
good.  The  county  borders  the  Ohio  River  along  which  ex- 
tends the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  and  a trolley  line.  The 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  also  crosses  the  northern  part  of  the 
county  and  the  Wabash  crosses  it  near  the  middle.  Another 
trolley  line  extends  almost  across  the  southern  part  of  the 
county.  All  these  roads  carry  both  passengers  and  freight. 
The  county  roads  have  been  but  little  improved,  they  are 
very  muddy  in  winter  but  very  good  in  summer.  There  is  a 
macadamized  road  across  the  middle  of  the  county  and  some 
other  roads  are  being  built. 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


1 — A well  graded  road.  2 — Using  an  auto  truck  for  hauling  supplies  to 

the  country.  3 — A tunnel  built  fifty  years  ago  to  shorten  a country  road  ; now 
used  by  a trolley  line  also. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


11 


STATISTICS  FOR  BROOKE  COUNTY,  1850-1910. 

Since  no  changes  in  the  boundaries  of  the  county  have 
been  made  since  1848  when  Hancock  County  was  formed,  the 
census  reports  show  the  progress  of  the  county  beginning 
with  1850. 

Population,  Improved  Land  and  Value  of  Farms.  The 

increase  in  population  has  been  much  more  noticeable  during 


A steep  hill  road. 

the  past  twenty  years,  during  which  time  towns  have  grown 
rapidly.  While  the  population  of  many  of  these  is  classed  as 
rural,  the  interests  are  almost  entirely  in  other  industries. 
The  growth  and  change  in  population  will  influence  the  agri- 
culture in  the  future. 

It  seems  probable  that  some  of  the  changes  in  the  area  of 
improved  land  must  be  due  to  some  confusion  as  to  the  classi- 
fication used  by  the  census  enumerators  at  different  times. 
There  is  no  tendency  to  increase  the  amount  of  land  under 
cultivation. 

The  high  point  in  the  value  of  farm  property,  reached  in 
1870,  was  due  to  the  inflated  condition  of  currency,  but  the 
rise  has  been  very  marked  in  the  past  decade.  It  is  possible 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


that  the  new  land  cleared  during  the  period  1860  to  1870  may 
have  increased  the  value  per  acre. 


Population,  Improved  Land  and  Value  of  Farms. 


Census 

Acres  of  im- 

Value of  land 

year 

Population 

proved  land 

and  buildings 

1850  

4,954 

33,811 

$1,279,368 

1860  

5,443 

41,099 

2,447,903 

1870  - 

5,367 

54,856 

3,548,075 

1880  

6,013 

35,642 

2,941,124 

1890  

6,660 

44,582 

2,575,840 

1900  

7,219 

44,792 

2,272,030 

1910  

11,098 

36,977 

3,050,920 

Crop  Production.  The  annual  production  of  no  staple 
crop  was  as  large  in  1910  as  had.been  reported  for  some  for- 
mer census.  Hay  is  the  only  crop  showing  a marked  in- 
crease over  1850. 


Crop  Production — 1850-1910. 


i Census 

Corn 

Oats 

Wheat 

Hay 

year 

(Bushels) 

(Bushels) 

(Bushels) 

(Tons) 

i 1850  

150,571 

51,729 

65,516 

4,755 

1860  

142,129 

64,940 

23,490 

5,445 

i 1870  - 

185,576 

81,135 

45,559 

7,570 

1880  

162,809 

61,390 

62,623 

6,180 

1890  

137,354 

86,750 

49,057 

8,606 

1900  

164,560 

74,340 

40,600 

8,611 

1910  

153,560 

60,255 

20,758 

8,139 

Livestock  Production.  Two  noteworthy  changes  have 
come  about  in  this  branch  of  farming.  There  are  about  one- 
fourth  as  many  sheep  in  the  county  as  there  were  in  1850  and 
about  twice  as  many  dairy  cows.  About  the  same  number  of 
horses  is  found  on  farms  now  as  during  the  earlier  periods. 
Hogs  have  decreased  in  number  since  1890.  The  total  value 
of  all  livestock  has  risen  steadily  since  1880. 


Livestock— 1850-1910. 


Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Number 

Value  of 

Census 

of  dairy 

of  other 

of 

of 

of 

all 

year 

.'OWS 

cattle 

horses 

sheep 

swine 

livestock 

1850  

1,101 

1,584 

1,278 

59,426 

5,984 

$223,067 

1860  

1,319 

1,513 

1,399 

40,620 

3,309 

282,439 

1870  

1,060 

1,439 

1,230 

46,581 

2,920 

265.944 

1880  

1,484 

1,845 

1,318 

45,734 

4,295 

240,227 

1890  

1,637 

2,277 

1,616 

25,679 

5,044 

270,840 

1900  

1,794 

2,320 

1,498 

20,043 

3,500 

285,352 

1910  

2,041 

1,468 

1,326 

15,152 

2,097 

309,841 

While  changes  in  agriculture  are  evident  from  these  re- 
ports, no  marked  increases  have  been  made  since  the  first 
census  of  the  county  in  1850. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


13 


INFLUENCE  OF  SIZE  OF  BUSINESS 
UPON  PROFITS. 

In  tabulating  and  studying  the  records  it  has  been  notice- 
able that  the  farms  making  large  labor  incomes  as  well  as 
those  making  large  minus  labor  incomes  are  the  farms  with 
a large  business.  The  size  of  the  business  is  limited  by  the 
acreage  except  in  the  case  of  the  specialized  farm.  The  small 
general  farm  furnishes  a living  and  a home  for  the  family ; 
but  the  opportunities  for  efficiency  in  utilizing  labor,  for  grow- 
ing a sufficient  number  of  acres  of  crops,  and  keeping  enough 
productive  stock,  are  limited.  The  size  of  business  may  be 
measured  in  the  following  ways : acres  in  the  farm,  crop 
acres,  animal  units,  labor  units  and  gross  income. 

The  average  size  of  the  201  farms  in  Brooke  County  is 
150  acres.  The  farms  range  from  12  acres,  the  smallest,  to 
488  acres,  the  largest.  Two  conditions  make  it  impossible  to 
get  a good  measure  of  the  size  of  business  from  the  number 
of  acres  in  the  farm.  First,  there  is  a considerable  amount 
of  unused  land  on  some  large  farms;  second,  there  are  a num- 
ber of  small  specialized  farms  doing  a large  business  on  a 
small  area  of  ground.  For  this  reason,  tables  showing  the 
influence  of  acreage  on  labor  income  are  of  no  value. 

Crop  Acres  Related  to  Labor  Income.  Crop  acres  in- 
clude the  acreage  in  meadow,  orchard,  truck  and  all  grain 
crops.  The  average  number  of  crop  acres  per  farm  is  56.3. 

Table  I. — Crop  Acres  Related  to  Labor  Income,  192  Farms. 

(Truck  Farms  Excluded.) 

Number  of  Labor 


Crop  Acres  farms  income 

20  or  less 23  $ 23 

21  to  40 41  8 

41  to  60 51  20 

61  to  80 ..... 41  51 

81  to  100 18  277 

Over  100 18  616 

Average,  56.3  $104 


Table  I shows  the  labor  income  of  farms  with  20  or  less 
crop  acres  to  be  $23.  While  there  are  more  crop  acres  in  the 
next  two  groups  of  farms  the  labor  income  is  smaller.  These 
fall  in  the  class  of  general  farms  with  a small  crop  acreage. 
After  the  number  of  crop  acres  reaches  80  the  labor  income 
rises  with  additional  crop  acres.  The  group  of  farms  with 
more  than  100  crop  acres  has  the  largest  labor  income. 

Man  Labor  Related  to  Labor  Income.  A labor  unit  rep- 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


resents  approximately  an  average  day’s  work.  Some  farmers 
have  their  work  so  organized  that  they  can  do  an  average 
day’s  work  in  less  than  a day. 


Table  II. — Productive  Man  Labor  Related  to  Labor  Income, 
201  Farms. 


Productive 
man  labor  units 

100  or  less 

101  to  200 

201  to  300 

301  to  400 

401  to  500 

Over  500 


Average  number 


Number  of 

of  man  labor 

Labor 

farms 

units 

income 

19 

74 

$129 

45 

151 

-27 

60 

249 

63 

38 

344 

116 

22 

434 

317 

17 

647 

526 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  table  that  the  group  of  farms 
with  an  average  of  74  man  labor  units  made  $129  labor  in- 
come. This  group  includes  some  of  the  farms  which  are  pro- 
ducing for  special  markets.  On  the  small  farms  there  is  not 
enough  work  to  keep  the  men  busy  and  they  work  off  the 
farms  thus  adding  directly  to  their  labor  income  with  prac- 
tically no  expense.  The  investment  is  also  small  and  the 
interest  charge  is  correspondingly  low.  A distinct  increase 
in  the  labor  income  is  noted  in  the  group  of  farms  with  over 
400  man  labor  units. 

Gross  Receipts  Related  to  Labor  Income.  The  gross  re- 
ceipts include  all  farm  receipts.  The  increased  inventory  of 
farm  property  other  than  land  is  counted  a farm  receipt,  but 
increases  in  land  value  are  not  considered. 


Table  III. — Gross  Income  Related  to  Labor  Income,  201  Farms. 


Number  of  Average  Average 

Gross  income  farms  gross  income  labor  income 

Under  $400 22  $ 256  -$197 

401  to  800 41  575  -39 

801  to  1200 45  993  1 

1201  to  1600 35  1,384  114 

1601  to  2000 19  1,791  166 

2001  to  2400 11  2,223  163 

2401  to  2800 9 2,633  430 

2801  to  3200 5 2,924  534 

Over  3200 14  4,807  1,281 


The  group  of  farms  with  less  than  $400  gross  receipts  has 
an  average  labor  income  of  minus  $197.  In  general  there  is  a 
gradual  rise  in  labor  income  as  the  gross  receipts  rise.  In 
the  group  of  farms  with  more  than  $3,200  gross  receipts  the 
labor  income  is  $1,281 ; the  chance  of  making  this  labor  in- 
come is  about  1 in  14. 


The  preceding  tables  show  that  there  is  a direct  relation 
between  the  size  of  farm  business  and  labor  income.  The  size 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 

*5000-, 


4500 


15 


4000 


3500 


- 3000 

CO 

01 

cO 

z 

u> 

% 2500 
ui 

a 

2 

< 

200 0 
uJ 

Or 

ul 

K 

2 

udl600 

Z 

o 

u 

2 


fOOO 


5oo 


m.  m ^ 


1 


1 


AVERAGE  GROSS  INCOMES  IN  THE  DIFFERENT  GROUPS 

IPENSE.S  □ LABOR  INCOME 


minus  labor  income 


Diagram  showing  the  distribution  of  gross  incomes  of  different  sizes  among 
expenses,  interest,  and  labor  income. 


of  farm  business  is  difficult  to  measure.  Each  of  the  three  pre- 
ceding tables  measures  a particular  phase  of  it  to  some  ex- 
tent and  they  all  show  in  a general  way  that  labor  income 
rises  with  an  increase  in  the  size  of  farm  business.  The  seem- 
ing exception  in  the  case  of  the  groups  having  the  smallest 
total  number  of  acres,  crop  acres,  man  labor  units  and  animal 
units  is  due  to  the  fact  that  these  farms  with  a small  business 
get  prices  for  their  products  which  enable  them  to  make  fair 
labor  incomes. 


16 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


AMOUNT  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  CAPITAL. 

Amount  of  Capital  Invested.  The  type  of  farming  is  the 
chief  factor  in  determining  the  amount  and  distribution  of 
capital  on  farms  with  the  same  income.  A profitable  truck 
farm  can  be  operated  with  much  less  capital  than  a general 
farm  or  a dairy  farm  having  equivalent  receipts. 

Table  IV. — Family  Income  of  Farms  Classified  According  to 
Capital  Invested. 


158  Farms  Operated  by  Owners. 


Number 

Average 

Family- 

Capital 

of  farms 

capital 

income 

Average  of  all  farms 

$10,764 

$ 737 

$ 5,000  or  less ... .... 

33 

$ 3,558 

$ 432 

5,001  to  10,000 

57 

7,445 

535 

10,001  to  15,000 

37 

12,239 

878 

Over  15,000-. 

31 

22,777 

1,262 

Table  V. — Family  Income  of  Farms  Classified  According  to 
Capital  Invested. 

48  Farms  Operated  by  Tenants. 


Number  Average  Family- 

Capital  of  farms  capital  income 

Average  of  all  farms $1,399  $ 642 

$1,000  or  less 17  $ 704  $ 272 

1,001  to  2,000 16  1,402  554 

Over  2,000 10  2,577  1,410 


Family  income  includes  the  value  of  family  labor,  interest 
on  capital  and  labor  income,  and  is-  the  amount  of  money 
available  for  the  family’s  living  and  the  payment  of  interest  on 
indebtedness.  In  so  far  as  the  family  is  concerned,  net  in- 
come is  the  important  thing  and  in  this  discussion,  the  family 
is  the  unit  rather  than  the  farm  operator.  The  distinction  is 
clearly  drawn  in  the  case  of  farms  operated  by  owners  where 
the  labor  income  is  only  $45  while  the  family  income  is  $737. 
On  the  average  tenant  farm  the  labor  income  is  $421  while  the 
family  income  is  $642  or  about  $100  less  than  on  farms  operat- 
ed by  owners.  Interest  on  investment  is  deducted  in  figuring 
labor  incomes ; this  interest  on  farms  operated  by  owners  is 
very  much  greater  than  on  farms  operated  by  tenants  since 

the  investment  is  much  greater.  The  tenant  has  but  little  to 
live  on  except  labor  income  and  is,  therefore,  compelled  to 
make  a labor  income ; but  the  owner  can  live  reasonably  well 
without  a high  labor  income,  if  he  has  a large  investment,  for 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


17 


which  reason  he  frequently  does  not  strive  to  make  a large 
labor  income.  In  the  group  of  farms  with  largest  capital, 
which  averages  nearly  $23,000,  the  labor  income  is  minus  $88, 
yet  the  family  income  is  $1262.  These  men  have  an  invest- 
ment in  farm  property,  the  interest  on  which  is  making  them 
a good  living,  and  furnishes  them  a home  even  though  they 
are  really  getting  nothing  from  their  labor. 


* 1500 

1400 

lO 

< 1300 
- t 

^ 1*00 
O 

ii  oo 


£ 1000 
o 

^ 900 

g 800 


Ld 

t 6.0 

£ 
a. 

£ *°° 
UJ 

o 300 

O 


6oo 


>r 


*00 

too 

O 


jr  1 UVJ 

O 

U 

Z ZOO 

£ 300 
-J 

Ul  400 

< 5oo 
cs 

UJ 

'Z  too 


T/. 


l 


1 


BEST  25  PER  CENT  SEC0ND25  PER  CENT 


POSITIVE. 


■ 


THIRD25PER  CENT 


| POOREST 2 5 

per  cent 


JuASOR  INCOME  □ IHT«ESr  AND  UBOR 

O-OWNED  FARMS 


NEGATIVE 
LABOR  INCOME 


T- tenant  FARMS 


Comparison  of  family  incomes  and  labor  incomes  in  four  groups  of  farms 
operated  by  owners  and  tenants. 


An  additional  reason  for  the  larger  labor  income  of  the 
tenant  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  rent  paid  amounts  to  only 
three  percent  on  the  investment  in  land.  If  the  tenant  were 
charged  five  percent  on  the  value  of  the  land  as  is  the  owner, 
the  labor  income  of  the  tenant  would  be  $239  instead  of  $421, 
while  that  of  the  owner  is  only  $45.  This  difference  is  large 
enough  to  show  a distinct  advantage  in  favor  of  the  tenant 
farmer. 


18  W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 

The  tenant’s  capital  is  much  less  than  that  of  the  owners 
operating  their  own  farms.  The  farms  operated  by  tenants 
show  a rise  in  family  income  as  the  amount  of  capital  in- 
creases. The  tenants  with  over  $2,000  capital  are  operating 
farms  efficiently  and  making  more  than  hired  men’s  wages. 

A recent  investigation  shows  that  the  average  contribu- 
tion  to  the  family  living  made  by  the  farm  in  ten  localities  in 
the  eastern  part  of  the  United  States  was  $421.17  per  family 
of  4.6  persons.  This  includes  the  value  of  food,  fuel  and  the 
rent  of  the  house  and  must  be  added  to  the  labor  income  when 
farmers  incomes  are  compared  to  those  of  workers  in  town.* 

Distribution  of  Capital.  More  than  four-fifths  of  the 
total  capital  is  invested  in  real  estate.  One  who  has  but  little 
capital  can  best  begin  farming  as  a tenant,  since  in  this  case 
the  landlord  furnishes  the  larger  part  of  the  capital. 

Table  VI.  Distribution  of  Capital  on  Farms  Operated  by 
Owners  and  Tenants. 


158  farms  operated 
by  owners 

43  farms  operated 
by  tenants 

201  farms 

Average 

capital 

Percentage 
of  total 
capital 

Average 

capital 

Percentage 
of  total 
capital 

Average 

capital 

Percentage 
of  total 
capital 

Total  capital 

Real  estate 

Land  .. 

Buildings  ... 
Dwelling  house.... 

Livestock  

Machinery  and  tools 

Cash  

Feed  and  supplies.. 

1 

1 

I $10,764 
1 8,918 

1 6,126 

2,814 
1,809 
1,386 
326 
97 
37 

100.00 

82.85 

56.91 

26.14 

16.81 

12.88 

3.03 

.90 

.34 

$9,665 

8,265* 

6,212 

2,053 

1,238 

1,091 

227 

67 

15 

100.00 

85.51 

64.27 

21.24 

12.81 

11.29 

2.35 

.69 

.16 

$10,507 

8,757 

6,119 

2,624 

1,618 

1,323 

305 

80 

32 

100.00 

83.35 

58.23 

25.26 

16.00 

12.59 

2.90 

.86 

.30 

*Landlord’s  capital. 


Two  points  must  be  kept  in  mind  in  discussing  capital 
used  on  the  farm ; first,  the  total  amount  and  second,  the  dis- 
tribution or  the  amount  invested  in  different  parts  of  the  farm 
£“s-  The  farmer  operating  his  own  farm  is  using  about 
$1,000  more  than  both  tenant  and  landlord  use  on  rented 
farms.  A large  part  of  this  difference  is  in  the  buildings  which 
are  valued  at  $760  more  on  the  farms  operated  by  owners 
than  on  the  rented  farms.  The  difference  in  the  value  of  the 
dwelling  makes  up  the  greater  part  of  this.  The  investment 
in  live  stock  and  machinery  is  less  on  tenant  farms  than  on 
those  operated  by  owners.  The  percentages  of  total  capital 
used  for  different  purposes  on  farms  operated  by  owners  are 

•U.  s-  Department  of  Agriculture — Farmers’  Bulletin  635. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


19 


not  strikingly  different  from  the  percentages  used  in  the  same 
way  on  tenant  farms.  The  investment  in  real  estate  seems 
proportionally  high.  This  may  be  partly  due  to  high  land 
values,  however  a number  of  the  farms  are  not  carrying  as 
much  stock  as  they  could  carry.  One  may  have  too  much  of 
the  capital  invested  in  real  estate  and  not  have  sufficient 
capital  left  for  operating  the  farm  economically. 


Raising  colts  to  reduce  the  cost  of  horse  labor. 


Table  VII — Size  of  Farms  Related  to  Capital  Invested  in  Buildings, 

201  Farms. 


Average  capital 

Average  capital  invested  in  all  Percentage  of 
Size  of  farms  Number  invested  in  buildings  except  capital  invested 

(Acres)  of  farms  dwelling  house  dwelling  house  in  all  buildings 

60  or  less 26  $1,060  $ 465  44.0 

61  to  120..... 57  1,382  788  31.9 

121  to  180 58  1,843  955  26.1 

181  to  240 29  1,910  1,150  22.3 

Over  240 31  2,248  1,571  19.0 


The  farmers  living  on  farms  of  60  or  less  acres  have 
44  percent  of  the  total  capital  invested  in  buildings;  almost 
two-thirds  of  this  is  invested  in  the  dwelling  house.  There  is 
a general  rise  in  the  value  of  the  dwelling  house  and  other 
buildings  as  the  acreage  of  farms  increases.  In  the  group  of 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


farms  with  over  240  acres  per  farm  there  is  but  19  percent  of 
the  capital  invested  in  buildings  and  about  three-fifths  of  this 
is  invested  in  the  dwelling  house ; still  the  dwelling  house  is 
worth  more  than  twice  as  much  as  the  dwelling  in  the  group 
of  smallest  farms. 


SOURCES  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  INCOME. 


Profits  and  Number  of  Sources  of  Receipts.  There  are 
some  advantages  in  having  the  income  distributed  among 
I several  sources  and  throughout  the  year.  There  is  not  likely 
| to  be  a failure  of  several  crops  in  a given  year;  prices  of  all 
; crops  are  not  likely  to  be  low  at  one  time ; when  crops  are 
: growing  and  ripening  at  different  periods  labor  can  be  sup- 
plied without  great  difficulty ; disease  does  not  commonly  at- 
‘ tack  all  kinds  of  livestock  at-  once,  and  one  usually  spends 
more  wisely  if  his  money  comes  in  a little  at  a time  rather 
than  in  a lump  sum. 


Table  VIII. — Profits  on  Farms  Operated  toy  Owners  and  Tenants 
Classified  According  to  the  Number  of  Sources  of 
Income  over  $100. 


Number  of 
sources  of  income 
over  $100 

158  farms  operated 
by  owners 

43  farms  operated 
by  tenants 

201  farms 

Number  of 
farms 

Labor 

income 

Number 

farms 

1 

Labor 

income 

Number  of 
farms 

Labor 

income 

1 or  none 

27 

-$195 

11 

$ 98 

38 

-$110 

2 

48 

-102 

11 

188 

59 

-48 

3 

31 

-62 

4 

392 

35 

-10 

4 

24 

156 

8 

454 

32 

230 

5 

18 

417 

4 

1,006 

22 

524 

6 or  more 

10 

788 

5 

1,150 

15 

909 

The  labor  income  of  the  farms  in  the  group  with  one  or 
no  source  of  income  over  $100,  is  the  lowest  of  the  various 
groups ; the  group  with  the  largest  number  of  sources  has 
the  largest  labor  income.  This  is  true  of  all  farms  regardless 
of  tenure.  As  the  number  of  sources  of  income  increases  the 
labor  income  increases  also.  The  increase  in  labor  income  is 
more  rapid  in  passing  from  one  group  to  the  next  when  there 
are  several  sources  of  income  over  $100  than  when  there  are 
but  few. 

Sources  of  Receipts.  The  farmers  of  Brooke  County 
derive  their  incomes  from  the  sale  of  crops,  stock,  stock  pro- 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


21 


•ducts,  and  some  miscellaneous  receipts  which  are  mostly  for 
work  off  the  farm. 


Table  IX. — Distribution  of  Receipts  on  Farms  Operated  by 
Owners  and  Tenants. 


Sources  of  receipts 

158  farms 

operated  by  owners 

43  farms 

i operated  by  tenants 

201  farms 

Receipts 

Percent 
of  total 
receipts 

I Receipts 

Percent 
of  total 
receipts 

Receipts 

Percent 
of  total 
receipts 

Total  receipts 

$1,467 

100.00 

$1,286 

100.00 

$1,427 

100.00 

Orops  

$ 195 

13.2 

$ 249 

19.4 

$ 206 

14.4 

Livestock  

368 

25.0 

299 

23.3 

353 

24.7 

Stock  products 

522 

36.0 

447 

34.7 

506 

35.5 

Miscellaneous  

. 129 

8.7 

150 

11.7 

133 

9.3 

Increased  inventory 

253 

17.1 

141 

10.9 

229 

16.1 

The  largest  receipts  comes  from  the  sale  of  stock  pro- 
ducts and  the  next  largest  from  the  sale  of  livestock.  Crop 
sales  a~e  not  usually  large. 


Tenants  receive  a little  more  from  crops  than  owners 
operating  their  own  farms.  The  same  is  true  as  regards 
miscellaneous  receipts.  The  small  amount  of  stock  on  tenant 
farms  accounts  for  the  larger  crop  sales  by  tenants. 


TYPES  OF  FARMS. 

There  are  various  ways  of  classifying  farms  as  to  type 
but  for  this  discussion  those  having  an  enterprise  yielding 
more  than  fifty  percent  of  the  gross  receipts  have  been  group- 
ed together.  On  this  basis  there  are  9 truck  farms  and  18 
dairy  farms  among  the  201  farms  in  Brooke  County.  There 
are  a few  other  farms  in  the  county  which  would  fall  into 
other  types  on  the  same  basis  but  they  are  so  few  that  a 
study  of  them  would  be  unimportant  for  general  averages. 

Truck  and  Dairy  Farms.  There  are  several  farms  in  the 
county  selling  a considerable  amount  of  truck  crops  which 
do  not  fall  into,  the  class  of  truck  farms  since  less  than  50 
percent  of  their  receipts  come  from  sales  of  truck.  The  same 
is  true  of  farms  selling  dairy  products. 


22 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  155 


Table  X. — Truck  and  Dairy  Farms  Compared. 


Factors  9 Truck  farms  18  Dairy  farms  201  Farms- 

Total  capital  per  farm $6,338  $12,966  $10,507 

Acres  in  farm 83.2  167.0  150.0 

Crop  acres  32.1  62.1  55.2 

Value  of  livestock $491  $1,715  $1,323 

Animal  units 5.9  24.1  21.6 

Value  of  machinery $200  $403  $305 

Labor  units  per  man 114.0  175.0  151.0 

Family  labor  per  farm $118  $214  $153 

Family  income  $894  $1,058  $716 

Labor  income  $567  $389  $125 


Truck  crops  in  the  Ohio  Valley. 


Table  X shows  that  on  the  truck  farms  capital,  size 
of  farm,  crop  acres,  value  of  machinery  and  family  labor  are 
about  half  as  much  as  the  same  factors  on  the  dairy  farms. 
All  these  factors  are  a little  higher  on  the  dairy  farms  than 
for  the  average  of  all  the  farms.  There  is  about  four  times  as 
much  livestock  on  the  dairy  farms  as  on  the  truck  farms,  and 
about  one-third  more  labor.  The  labor  income  of  the  truck 
farms  is  about  one-third  larger  than  the  labor  income  of  the 
dairy  farms,  and  about  four  and  one-half  times  as  large  as 
the  average  labor  income  on  all  the  farms. 

The  opportunity  for  trucking  is  limited  by  both  soil  and 
markets.  There  is  a considerable  area  adapted  to  trucking 
which  is  unused  and  no  truck  crops  are  shipped  out.  Local 
markets  are  not  completely  supplied.  Dairy  products  can  be 
produced  in  nearly  all  sections  but  the  profitableness  will  be 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


23 


limited  in  many  cases  by  the  bad  roads  which  add  much  to 
the  expense. 

Farms  Selling  Milk,  and  Butter  and  Cream.  Of  the  farms 
with  six  or  more  cows  there  are  14  selling  milk  and  64  selling 
butter  or  cream,  or  both. 


A method  of  marketing  dairy  products. 


Table  XI. — Farms  Selling  Market  Milk  Compared  with  Those 
Selling  Butter  and  Cream. 


Factors 


14  Farms  selling 
market  milk 


64  Farms  selling 
butter  and  cream 


-Capital  per  farm $13,979.00 

Number  of  acres  per  farm 182.00 

Number  of  cows  per  farm 16.50 

Receipts  per  cow  from  milk  and  its  products  $112.28 

Feed  purchased  per  cow 22.64 

Receipts  per  farm  from  crops 152.40 

Crop  index  ....: 90.10 

Distance  from  market  (miles) 3.20 

Family  labor  per  farm $302.00 

Labor  income  641.00 


$12,390.00 

167.00 

10.10 

$65.18 

13.72 

172.20 

107.90 

4.40 

$189.25 

136.00 


The  farms  selling  market  milk  have  more  capital  invested, 
larger  farms  and  more  cows  than  those  selling  butter  and 
cream,  and  the  receipts  per  cow  are  almost  twice  as  great. 
The  difference  in  the  receipts  per  cow  is  largely  due  to  the 
•difference  between  the  value  of  the  product  when  sold  as 


24 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153- 


market  milk  or  butter.  The  farms  selling  butter  and  cream 
have  much  better  crop  yields  and  receive  more  from  sales  of 
crops  than  the  farms  selling  milk.  The  farms  selling  milk 
are  closer  to  market,  have  a larger  amount  of  family  labor, 
and  are  making  a labor  income  more  than  four  times  as  large 
as  the  farms  selling  butter  and  cream. 

Receipts  per  Cow.  On  farms  with  less  than  four  cows  a 
large  percentage  of  the  milk  is  used  by  the  family.  The  aver- 
age receipts  per  cow  on  farms  with  four  or  more  cows  is  $66; 
the  average  receipts  on  farms  with  twelve  or  more  cows  is  $84. 


FORMS  OF  TENANCY. 


Cash  and  Share  Rented  Farms.  Of  the  201  farms  studied 

there  are  27  farms  cash  rented,  14  farms  share  rented,  and  2 
farms  partly  cash  and  partly  share  rented.  A few  farmers 
owned  land  and  rented  additional  land  but  they  are  so  few 
that  they  are  not  considered  separately. 


Table  XII. — Comparison  of  Farms  of  Different  Tenure. 


Tenant’s  capital  

Landlord’s  capital  .... 

Acres  in  farm 

Man  labor  units  per  farm 

Productive  labor  units  per  man. 
Animal  units  per  farm 


27  Cash 

14  Share 

43  farms 

158  Farms 

rented 

rented 

operated  by 

operated  by 

farms 

$1,434 

farms 

$1,291 

7,661 

tenants 

$1,399 

8,265 

owners 

. 8,613 

$10,764 

. 147 

186 

159 

148 

. 280 

253 

269 

289 

. 154 

155 

155 

150 

18.4 

20.0 

18.8 

22.3 

87.9 

92.9 

90.6 

104.5 

. $1.85 

$2.75* 

$2.29* 

. 2.2% 

3.9% 

2.8% 

. $445 

$328 

$421 

$45 

* Equivalent  to  cash  rent. 


There  is  but  little  difference  in  the  factors  on  the  farms 
rented  for  cash  and  those  rented  on  shares.  The  crop  index 
on  all  the  rented  farms  is  considerably  lower  than  on  the 
owned  farms.  The  men  who  rent  for  cash  get  the  use  of  the 
farms  at  almost  a dollar  less  per  acre  than  the  farmers  who 
rent  on  shares.  The  landlords  who  rent  their  land  for  a 
share  of  the  crops  are  making  a higher  rate  of  interest  than 
the  landlords  who  rent  for  cash.  The  landlord’s  rate  repre- 
sents the  percentage  that  his  farm  income  forms  of  his  capi- 
tal. The  tenants  who  rent  for  cash  make  $117  more  labor 
income  than  the  tenants  who  rent  on  the  share  basis. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


25 


Table  XIII. — Variation  in  Rent  Received  by  Landlords  on  hi  Farms 
Operated  by  Tenants. 


Landlord’s  rent.  Percent  of 

Percentage  on  Number  of  total 

investment  landlords  number 

1 or  less 8 19.5 

1.1  to  2 . 10  24.4 

2.1  to  3 8 19.5 

3.1  to  4 ...  4 9.8 

4.1  to  5 6 14.6 

Over  5 5 12.2 


None  of  the  landlords  are  receiving  a very  high  rate  of 
interest  on  their  investments.  Of  the  41  landlords,  18  re- 
ceive 2 percent  or  less,  and  only  five  receive  over  5 percent. 


THE  EFFECT  OF  ACREAGE  ON  DIFFERENT 
FACTORS  OF  PRODUCTION. 

Efficiency  in  the  Use  of  Labor.  The  farmers  with  a small 
acreage  are  handicapped  in  many  of  the  farm  operations  as 
shown  in  the  following  tables.  Almost  as  much  machinery 
and  motive  power  must  be  kept  on  hand  for  growing  a few 
acres  of  crops  as  for  several  times  as  many.  A large  field  can 
be  worked  much  more  economically  than  a small  one. 

Table  XIV. — Labor  Efficiency  of  Farms  Grouped  According  to  the 
Number  of  Crop  Acres. 

Number  Crop  acres  Man  Crop  Val.  of  ma- 

Number  of  work  per  work  equiv-  acres  chinery  per 


Crop  acres  of  farms  borses  horse  alent  per  man  crop  acre 

HO  or  less 28  1.8  7.0  1.3  10.2  $10.39 

21  to  40 42  2.5  12.2  1.6  19.6  5.99 

41  to  60 52  3.5  14.5  1.9  27.0  5.63 

61  to  80 43  4.4  16.0  2.1  34.3  5.12 

81  to  100 18  5.4  16.3  2.4  36.7  5.28 

•Over  100 18  6.2  19.8  2.8  44.6  4.60 


Each  man  and  horse  cares  for  a larger  number  of  acres 
of  crops  on  the  farms  growing  the  larger  acreages  of  crops. 
The  difference  in  the  number  of  crop  acres  per  work  animal 
in  groups  of  smallest  and  largest  farms  is  12.8  and  the  differ- 
ence in  crop  acres  per  man  is  34.4.  The  value  of  machinery 
per  crop  acre  is  $10.39  in  the  group  of  farms  with  twenty  acres 
■or  less.  In  the  group  21  to  40  acres  the  value  of  machinery 
per  crop  acre  is  $5.99.  There  is  not  a great  change  in  the 
value  of  machinery  per  crop  acre  in  the  groups  of  farms  with 
larger  crop  acreages. 

Yields  of  Crops.  About  nine-tenths  of  the  farmers  grow 
corn  and  hay,  about  eight-tenths  grow  oats  and  about  one- 
half  grow  wheat. 


26 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153: 


Table  XV. — Yields  of  Crops  on  Farms  of  Different  Sizes. 


Size  of  farms 
(Acres) 

CORN 

OATS 

WHEAT 

HAY 

Number 
of  farms 

1 

Bushels 
per  acre 

j Number 
of  farms 

I 

Bushels 
per  acre 

Number  i 
of  farms  i 

Bushels 
per  acre 

Number 
of  farms 

Tons 
per  acre 

Average  

1 

42.0 

1 

l 

28.3 

1 

1 1 

12.0 

1 1 

1.00 

30  or  less 

7 

44.0 

2 

9.8 

5 

1.20 

31  to  50 

7 

39.6 

5 

17.8 

2 

10.0 

1.10 

51  to  100 

41 

35.8 

30 

22.5 

14 

15.2 

42 

1.00 

101  to  150 

42 

40.7 

41 

25.8 

22 

11.2 

41 

.98 

151  to  200 

43 

41.0 

42 

29.6 

30 

12.3 

45 

1.00 

Over  200  

| 43 

44.3 

42 

[ 

30.8 

37 

I 

12.0 

1 

| 43 

1 

1.00 

The  old  method  of  using  the  corn  crop. 


There  seems  to  be  no  direct  relation  between  size  of 
farms  and  crop  yields  except  in  the  case  of  oats  which  shows 
a gradual  increase  in  yield  as  the  number  of  crop  acres  in- 
creases. 

Expenditure  of  Labor.  Some  types  of  farming  require 
much  more  labor  per  acre  than  other  types,  however,  labor 
can  be  more  economically  used  on  large  general  farms  prop- 
erly organized  than  on  small  farms  of  the  same  type. 

Intensity  of  Livestock  Production.  An  animal  unit  repre- 
sents one  horse,  cow  or  the  equivalent,  based  upon  the  amount 
of  feed  eaten. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


2? 


Table  XVI. — Relation  Between  the  Amount  of  Livestock  kept  per  100 
Acres  of  Pasture  and  Crop  Land , and  Labor  Income,  192  Farms. 


Number  of  animal 

Average  number  of 

Number  of 

units  per  100  acres 

animal  units  per  100 

farms  in 

of  crop  and 

acres  of  crop  and 

Labor 

group 

pasture  land 

pasture  land 

income 

34 

10  or  less 

6.5 

$ 2 

53 

11  to  15 

13.2 

18 

49 

16  to  20 

17.8' 

120 

33 

21  to  25 

22.5 

169 

23 

Over  25 

32.3 

328 

The  amount  of  livestock  to  be  kept  on  a given  area  of  land 
is  determined  by  many  factors,  such  as  productivity  of  soil, 
relative  value  of  crops  and  stock,  and  amount  of  labor  avail- 


The  new  way  ; increasing  in  popularity. 


able.  In  this  study  truck  farms  have  been  omitted  since 
livestock  is  not  a large  factor  in  that  business.  The  farmers 
who  have  farms  in  condition  to  carry  a reasonable  amount  of 
stock  are  making  larger  labor  incomes  than  those  who  can 
keep  only  a few  head  on  an  equal  area  of  crop  and  pasture 
land.  Table  XVI  shows  clearly  that  it  pays  to  have  land  in 
condition  to  carry  more  stock  than  many  farms  now  carry. 
The  labor  income  increases  in  each  group  of  farms  from  those 
having  ten  or  less  animal  units  per  hundred  acres  of  crops 
and  pasture  up  to  those  having  twenty-five  or  more  animal 
units  on  the  same  area. 


28 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


LAMB  PRODUCTION. 

Fine-wool  sheep — Merinos  and  Delaines — are  practically 
the  only  breeds  grown  in  Brooke  County.  Wool  production 
has  been  one  of  the  leading  industries  for  many  years.  Since 
the  price  of  wool  has  become  very  low,  fine  wool  sheep  are 
not  so  profitable  as  formerly.  The  fleeces  average  6.8  pounds ; 
the  price  this  year  averaged  23.5  cents  per  pound. 


A profitable  method  of  using  pasture  some  distance  from  market. 


Table  XVII. — Lamb  Production  on  Farms  with  Different 
Numbers  of  Ewes. 


Average  num-  Number  of  Average  num- 
Ewes  per  Number  ber  of  ewes  farms  report-  ber  of  lambs 

farm  of  farms  per  farm  ing  lambs  per  ewe 

50  or  less 28  26  21  .38 

51  to  100 22  71  19  .35 

Over  100 16  140  14  .29 


From  Table  XVII  it  will  be  seen  that  some  of  the  farmers 
raise  no  lambs  at  all  some  years.  Of  66  farmers  who  kept  ewes 
but  no  wethers,  12  report  no  lambs.  The  farmers  who  grow 
lambs  are  not  attempting  to  grow  very  many.  The  average 
is  about  one-third  of  a lamb  per  ewe. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY 


29 


EGG  PRODUCTION. 

Almost  all  farms  in  Brooke  County  grow  some  chickens 
and  sell  some  eggs ; many  of  them  sell  both  chickens  and  eggs. 

Table  XVIII. — Production  and  Value  of  Eggs  and  Chickens  on  Farms 
Having  Different  Numbers  of  Hens. 


Number  Average  num-  Total 

of  hens  Number  ber  of  hens  Receipts  Receipts  for  receipts 

per  farm  of  farms  per  farm  for  eggs  chickens  per  hen 

50  or  less 62  39.6  $ 36.25  $17.76  $1.36 

51  to  100 102  80.8  81.94  26.80  1.36 

Over  100 34  164.0  163.44  53.97  1.33 


The  receipts  for  eggs  are  nearly  three  times  as  great  as 
the  receipts  from  sales  of  chickens.  The  receipts  from  both 
eggs  and  chickens  are  in  proportion,  in  a general  way,  to  the 
number  of  chickens  kept.  The  receipts  per  hen  are  practically 
the  same  in  the  flocks  of  different  sizes. 


FARMS  WITH  OVER  $500  LABOR  INCOME. 

Thirty-eight  farmers  made  over  $500  labor  income;  of 
these,  14  were  tenants  and  24  owners.  About  one  farmer  in 
each  five  is  making  a labor  income  of  $500  or  more.  Three 
farmers  make  over  $2,000  labor  income. 

AGE  OF  FARMERS. 

The  average  age  of  the  201  farmers  is  50  years.  The 
tenants  average  about  10  years  younger  than  the  owners  who 
are  operating  farms.  Young  men  are  generally  making  better 
labor  incomes  than  older  men,  many  of  whom  have  retired 
from  active  work. 


30 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


SUMMARY. 

The  results  of  this  survey  show  what  may  be  expected 
from  farming  under  conditions  similar  to  those  in  Brooke 
County.  The  average  labor  income  of  the  201  farms  is  $125. 
In  addition  to  this  the  farm  has  furnished  a home  for  the 
family  and  products  for  the  table  such  as  milk,  butter,  eggs, 
vegetables,  and  meats.  To  be  a business  success  a farm  must 
pay  all  expenses,  interest  on  the  investment  and  wages  for 
all  labor  performed  by  the  farmer  and  his  family ; but  a farm 
may  be  a success  when  it  furnishes  a home  and  a living,  and 
gives  pleasure  to  the  owner. 

Size  of  Business.  We  have  seen  that  when  labor  income 
is  compared  with  magnitude  of  business,  when  the  latter  is 
measured  either  by  the  area  in  crops,  by  the  amount  of  pro- 
ductive man  labor,  or  the  gross  income,  the  labor  income 
increases  materially  as  the  magnitude  of  the  farm  business 
increases.  By  comparing  amount  of  working  capital  with 
labor  income  we  get  a similar  result.  In  order  to  secure  an 
income  that  will  permit  a satisfactory  standard  of  living,  the 
farm  business  must  be  of  considerable  size.  Where  the  situa- 
tion permits  very  intensive  farming,  such  as  trucking,  fruit 
growing,  etc.,  a large  business  may  be  conducted  on  a few 
acres ; but  where  the  conditions  are  such  as  to  require  gen- 
eral farming,  as  most  kinds  of  livestock  farming,  the  acreage 
must  be  larger.  A farmer  with  a very  small  acreage  who 
cannot  engage  in  intensive  farming  because  of  a lack  of 
markets  for  the  products  would  find  it  to  his  advantage  to 
rent  additional  land  or,  in  some  cases,  to  sell  his  small  farm 
and  invest  his  capital  in  the  necessary  work  stock  and  imple- 
ments to  farm  a larger  area  and  become  a tenant  on  a farm  oi 
sufficient  size  to  give  an  opportunity  to  earn  a good  income. 

Capital.  There  is  a close  relation  between  the  amount  of 
capital  invested  and  the  family  income,  but  on  many  farms 
where  the  capital  is  large,  organization  is  poor  and  there  is 
no  income  for  labor. 

Diversity.  Diversified  farming  offers  the  best  opportuni- 
ties when  carried  on  with  a large  business.  The  labor  income 
rises  as  the  number  of  sources  of  income  increases  as  shown 
in  Table  VIII.  Diversity  in  general  farming  is  very  important 
as  it  insures  a more  nearly  uniform  income  from  year  to  year. 
It  also  affords  an  opportunity  for  utilizing  labor  and  mach- 
inery economically. 


August,  1915]  BROOKE  CO.  AGRICULTURAL  SURVEY  31 

Types,  Most  of  the  farms  of  Brooke  County  are  classed 
as  general  farms  and  have  different  problems  from  the  spe- 
cialized ones.  Truck  and  dairy  farms  are  the  two  specialized 
types  most  common  and  both  are  generally  successful.  A 
combination  of  enterprises  including  dairy,  truck,  fruit  or 
general  crop  farming  organized  to  suit  individual  needs  seems 
to  be  most  desirable.  Only  a small  part  of  the  area  adapted 
to  growing  truck  crops  is  utilized  for  that  purpose  at  present. 
While  there  are  but  few  large  orchards,  fruit  of  an  excellent 
quality  can  be  grown  throughout  the  county.  The  production 
of  dairy  products  need  be  limited  by  the  market  only.  Corn 
for  grain  is  giving  way  to  silage  corn  and  alfalfa  is  increasing 
in  acreage  very  rapidly. 

Livestock.  While  there  is  a great  variation  in  the  pro- 
duction of  dairy  cows  on  different  farms,  there  is  no  striking 
difference  in  production  in  the  groups  of  farms  of  different 
sizes  nor  in  the  small  and  large  herds.  The  form  in  which 
the  product  is  marketed  has  a considerable  influence  on  the 
value  of  the  product  per  cow — market  milk  paying  best.  Beef 
cattle  are  not  raised  in  any  considerable  numbers.  Fine-wool 
sheep — Delaines  and  Merinos — are  grown  almost  exclusively. 
The  size  of  the  flock  has  but  little  influence  on  the  produc- 
tion per  ewe.  Almost  every  farm  has  a flock  of  chickens. 
The  production  per  hen  is  about  the  same  in  different  sized 
flocks. 

Tenure.  The  labor  income  on  farms  operated  by  tenants 
is  larger  than  on  farms  operated  by  owners,  but  the  tenant’s 
capital  is  small  and  his  income  available  for  use  of  the  family 
is  smaller  than  that  of  the  owner  operating  his  own  farm. 
Share  renting  usually  gives  the  owner  a larger  return  on  his 
investment  than  cash  rental. 

Opportunities  and  Suggestions.  A farm  which  gives  a 
labor  income  of  $500  in  addition  to  furnishing  a home  and  a 
large  part  of  the  living  is  a good  business.  While  the  number 
making  this  labor  income  is  not  large,  about  twenty  percent, 
indications  are  that  opportunities  are  open  for  farmers  on 
well  organized  farms  in  this  county. 

Since  truck  and  dairy  farming  are  the  most  profitable 
types  and  a rather  large  area  is  available  which  is  adapted 
to  these  industries,  they  can  be  materially  increased.  Markets 
for  the  products  will  be  the  first  limitation.  So  far  as  can 
be  seen  now  there  is  little  danger  of  over  supplying  the  mar- 
kets that  can  be  reached. 


32 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  153 


The  farms  some  distance  from  the  railroads  or  trolley 
lines  can  produce  butter  at  a profit  if  good  producing  cows 
are  kept,  and  in  addition  many  of  these  farmers  would  find  it 
profitable  to  gradually  develop  purebred  herds  from  which 
they  might  sell  surplus  stock. 

General  farming  is  profitabe  only  when  conducted  on  a 
large  scale.  The  size  of  business  may  be  increased  by  in- 
tensifying the  culture  or  by  increasing  the  area  of  the  farm. 
The  area  can  be  extended  by  buying  or  renting  additional  land. 

Brooke  County  is  admirably  adapted  to  sheep  grazing. 
A few  of  the  farmers  have  found  it  profitable  to  cross  the 
fine-wool  ewes  with  mutton  type  sires,  thus  producing  market 
lambs  in  addition  to  wool.  In  any  case  it  is  highly  desirable 
to  produce  a larger  number  of  lambs  from  the  ewes.  The 
production  on  the  average  of  one-third  of  a lamb  per  ewe  is 
certainly  unprofitable  with  present  prices  for  mutton. 
(Table  XVII). 

Poultry  is  produced  on  almost  every  farm  and  in  most 
cases  could  be  profitably  grown  in  greater  numbers.  The 
returns  per  hen  indicate  that  better  care  of  the  poultry  would 
be  profitable  (Table  XVIII).  For  the  man  with  small  capital, 
tenant  farming  seems  advisable.  One  should  have  enough 
money  on  hand  to  operate  the  farm  economically.  This  year 
(1914)  cash  rental  paid  better  for  the  tenant  than  the  land- 
lord; with  poorer  crops,  share  rental  might  pay  better.  There 
are  some  farmers  in  each  group  of  farms  who  are  making  a 
success  of  their  farming.  This  indicates  that  organization  and 
management  as  well  as  the  type  of  farm  are  of  great  im- 
portance. 


August,  19  15 


Bulletin  154 


Wit#  t ^Xtrgtma  Untoersfltp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA. 


Department  of  Plant  Pathology 


APPLE  RUST 

TECHNICAL  BULLETIN 


BY 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS  and  ANTHONY  BERG 


Manuscript  received  for  publication  April  3,  1915. 


The  Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen 
of  West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station,  Morgantown,  West  Virginia. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial 
and  business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  State  Superintendent  of  Schools, 

President  Charleston,  W.  Va. 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  B.  TROTTER,  LL.D., Acting  President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


E.  DWIGHT  SANDERSON,  B.S.  Agr. 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

I.  S.  COOK,  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

*0.  M.  JOHNSON,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  M.S.  Agr 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

tL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY.  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHUIS  - KRAK,  B.Sc 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc 

HUBERT  HILL,  B.S.,  M.S 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  R.  JEFFRIES,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

*J.  B.  HUYETT,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

*A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

O.  M.  KILE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Horticulturist 

Agronomist 

- Research  Entomologist 

Farm  Management 

Animal  Husbandry 

— - Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

- Soil  Investigations 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

- Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Editor 

Bookkeeper 


*In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


APPLE  RUST 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  apple  rust,  or  cedar  rust  as  it  is  frequently  called, 
is  a common  disease  in  most  sections  where  apple  trees  and 
cedar  trees  are  growing  in  close  proximity.  Before  the  habits 
of  this  fungus  were  very  well  understood  it  was  a common 
practice  to  plant  a row  of  red  cedars  along  one  or  more  sides 
of  an  orchard,  to  serve  as  a windbreak.  The  old  time  mixed 
orchard  was  likely  to  contain  varieties  which  showed  different 
degrees  of  susceptibility  and,  if  the  rust  was  present,  those 
trees  which  suffered  most  from  the  disease  were  probably  con- 
sidered to  be  weaklings.  Some  of  the  trees  were  practically 
certain  to  bear  well,  which  meant  enough  fruit  for  home  use, 
and  that  was  the  principal  object  of  such  an  orchard. 

When  people  began  to  realize  that  there  was  good  profit 
in  growing  apples  for  market  they  found  that  it  was  an  easier 
proposition  to  handle  a large  number  of  trees  of  one  or  two 
varieties  than  a few  trees  each  of  several  varieties.  Certain 
apples  were  soon  found  to  be  well  suited  to  a given  section  or 
sections  of  the  country,  and  specialization  set  in.  It  happened 
that  some  varieties  of  apples  especially  susceptible  to  the  apple 
rust  disease  were  chosen  as  desirable  for  the  planting  of  com- 
mercial orchards  in  sections  of  the  country  where  red 
cedar  was  particularly  abundant.  (Plate  IX,  figs.  1 and  3.) 
Under  such  favorable  conditions  it  must  be  expected  that  the 
amount  of  disease  would  increase. 

In  1910  this  rust  was  very  severe  in  the  eastern  section  of 
West  Virginia  and  in  1912  the  fruit  loss,  due  to  rust,  in  one 
county  was  estimated  at  not  less  than  $75,000.00.  This  De- 
partment began  some  studies  of  the  apple  rust  disease  in  1910. 
Attention  has  been  largely  devoted  to  economic  phases  of  the 
question,  since  it  was  of  such  great  importance  in  this  state. 

Note  : Mr.  D.  C.  Neal,  assistant  plant  pathologist  during  1911-13,  was  as- 
sociated with  some  of  this  work  during  the  seasons  of  1912-13. 


6 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


HISTORICAL. 

Gymno sporangium  juniperi-vir ginianae  was  discovered  and 
named  by  Schweinitz  in  1822.  The  genetic  connection  be- 
tween this  and  the  Roestelia  pirata  of  apple  appears  to  have 
been  finally  worked  out  by  Thaxter*  in  1886.  Since  that  time 
there  have  been  numerous  experiments  dealing  with  the  var- 
ious phases  of  the  cedar  and  apple  rust  problem.  Of  these,  we 
will  briefly  mention  the  more  important  ones  which  have  a 
bearing  on  the  work  conducted  by  this  Station. 

Halstead  (1889,  p.  380)  says,  “Very  likely  some  varieties 
of  cultivated  apples  are  more  susceptible  to  the  rust  than 
others,  but  as  the  observations  upon  this  point  are  very  meagre 
and  fragmentary,  it  is  not  safe  to  draw  general  conclusions 
from  them.” 

Galloway  (1889,  p.  413)  reports  on  a spraying  experiment 
for  apple  rust  control  at  Vineland,  N.  J.,  in  1888.  He  states 
that  the  foliage  remained  fairly  healthy,  yet  the  benefit  was 
not  sufficient  return  for  the  labor  expended. 

Jones  (1891,  p.  139)  conducted  an  experiment  near  Burl- 
ington, Vermont,  in  1889.  The  trees  were  sprayed  with  am- 
moniacal  copper  carbonate  May  17th  and  May  30th.  The  re- 
sults showed  no  marked  difference  in  the  percent  of  rusted 
leaves,  but  the  number  of  rust  spots  per  rusted  leaf  were  less 
on  the  sprayed  than  on  the  unsprayed  trees. 

Pammel  (1891,  p.  43)  sprayed  trees  of  the  wild  crab  apple 
with  Bordeaux  mixture  and  ammoniacal  copper  carbonate.  He 
concluded  that  there  was  little  benefit  from  spraying. 

Jones  (1892,  p.  133)  reported  on  further  experiments  in 
the  control  of  apple  rust  by  spraying.  He  secured  fairly  good 
results,  but  did  not  feel  that  this  method  of  control  was  very 
practical. 

Jones  (1893,  p.  83)  reported  on  the  destruction  of  cedars 
as  a means  of  controlling  apple  rust.  He  states  that,  “in  the 
fall  and  winter  of  1891-92  the  red  cedars  were  all  destroyed 
in  this  orchard,  and  for  a radius  of  one  mile  around  a careful 
examination  was  made  and  every  cedar  found  was  uprooted. 
The  result  was  magical.  In  former  years  many  of  the  apple 
trees  were  entirely  defoliated  by  rust  in  August ; the  past  sum- 
mer not  a rusted  leaf  was  found  in  the  entire  orchard.  The 


This  statement  is  based  on  Halstead,  1889,  p.  375. 


Apple  Rust 


7 


[Aug.,  1915] 

moral  is  plain.  Red  cedars  should  not  be  allowed  to  grow  in 
or  near  an  apple  orchard.  From  the  scientific  standpoint  the 
result  is  interesting  as  indicating  that  the  mycelium  of  this 
fungus  is  not  perennial  in  the  apple,  and  that  the  occurrence 
of  the  rust  on  the  apples  is  dependent  upon  annual  reinfection 
from  the  red  cedar.”  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the 
red  cedar  is  not  reported  as  a common  tree  in  Vermont.  While 
the  trees  were  all  destroyed  within  a range  of  one  mile  of  this 
orchard,  it  is  quite  likely  that  very  few  of  them  could  have 
been  found  within  a radius  of  two  miles. 

Stewart  and  Carver  (1896,  p.  538)  carried  on  a series  of 
experiments  to  ascertain  why  the  cultivated  apple  in  central 
Iowa  should  be  free  from  Roestelia.  Inoculations  with  G. 
juniperi  virginicinae  were  made  upon  the  wild  crab,  Pyrus 
Coronaria,  and  upon  cultivated  varieties  at  Ames,  Iowa,  and 
Long  Island,  N.  Y.  Abundant  Roestelia  developed  on  the  wild 
crab  but  in  no  case  was  it  formed  on  the  cultivated  varieties 
inoculated  at  Ames.  The  experiment  at  Long  Island  gave 
evidence  that  some  varieties  were  wholly  exempt  from 
Roestelia,  which  indicated  that  its  absence  on  cultivated  apples 
in  Iowa  might  not  be  entirely  due  to  unfavorable  weather  con- 
ditions, but  chiefly  to  the  fact  that  the  varieties  grown  in  Iowa 
were  not  susceptible. 

Austin  (1901,  p.  296)  carried  out  the  following  spray  pro- 
gram: Trees  were  carefully  sprayed  March  24th  before  growth 
started,  again  April  25th,  May  4th,  May  22nd,  June  5th,  June 
20th,  July  23rd,  August  9th  and  August  28th.  On  October 
10th  the  trees  were  examined  and  it  was  found  that  they  were 
at  least  as  badly  infected  as  in  the  previous  year. 

Emerson  (1905)*  reports  the  results  of  a detailed  spray 
program.  Twenty-two  trees  of  the  variety  Wealthy,  and  eight 
of  Jonathan,  received  from  one  to  three  applications  of  Bor- 
deaux. The  dates  of  spraying  were  April  26th,  April  27th, 
May  7th,  May  9th,  May  23rd,  and  May  28th.  Trees  which 
were  sprayed  on  May  7th  or  May  9th  showed  remarkable 
control. 

Heald  (1907,  p.  219)  discovered  the  biennial  character  of 
the  fungus  on  the  red  cedar.  He  also  carried  out  a series  of 
spraying  experiments  to  control  the  rust  on  cedar  trees,  and 
some  very  good  results  were  secured. 

• xr*Jhese  statements  in  regard  to  Prof.  Emerson  are  based  on  Pammel’s  report 
in  Nebraska  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin  84,  “The  Cedar  Apple  Fungi  and  Apple  Rust 
of  Iowa,”  page  34. 


8 


W.  Ya.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


Hein  (1908)  says,  “Although  spraying  with  Bordeaux 
mixture  or  other  fungicides  is  sometimes  recommended  as  a 
treatment  for  rust,  we  have  experimented  for  three  years  with- 
out any  markedly  beneficial  results.” 

Stewart  (1910,  p.  194)  reports  that  Mr.  F.  A.  Sirrine  at 
Long  Island  has  usually  had  little  success  in  controlling  rust 
in  his  bearing  orchard  by  several  applications  of  Bordeaux. 
However,  in  1910,  trees  given  two  applications  of  3-3-50  Bor- 
deaux showed  only  one-tenth  as  much  rust  as  the  unsprayed 
trees. 

Giddings  (1911,  p.  3)  reports  a case  in  which  rust  was 
well  controlled  by  a single  spray  application. 

Coons  (1912,  p.  217)  carried  on  some  experiments  as  to 
the  development  and  discharge  of  sporidia.  Speaking  of  the 
teliospores,  he  states  that  “The  process  of  putting  out  germ 
tubes  requires  from  6 to  15  hours”,  but  in  our  work  we  have 
secured  abundant  sporidia  discharge  within  less  than  3 hours 
after  a sorus  was  moistened  for  the  first  time.  (Plate  II, 
figs.  1 and  2.) 

Reed,  Cooley  & Rogers  (1912,  p.  7)  state  that  various 
spray  materials  are  being  tried  for  control  of  rust,  but  that  no 
entirely  satisfactory  spray  has  been  found  up  to  the  present 
time.  The  same  authors  (1912  a)  found  that  transpiration  and 
carbon  dioxide  assimilation  were  greatly  retarded  in  apple 
leaves  which  were  infected  with  rust. 

Bartholomew  (1912,  p.  253)  reports  the  results  of  experi- 
ments for  the  control  of  this  rust  by  spraying.  Applications 
of  Bordeaux  mixture  were  made  on  May  15th,  May  22nd  and 
May  30th.  He  states  that  the  spraying  was  done,  “immediate- 
ly following  the  formation  on  the  cedar  galls  of  the  jelly-like 
telial  extrusions,”  and  “before  sufficient  time  had  elapsed  for 
the  transfer  of  the  sporidia  from  the  galls  to  the  apple  foliage.” 
The  trees  so  sprayed  showed  pronounced  decrease  in  the 
percent  of  infected  leaves.  He  concluded  that,  “The  proper 
time  for  spraying  cannot  be  designated  by  any  fixed  dates, 
for  the  crucial  time  for  action  depends  entirely  upon  such 
weather  conditions  as  favor  the  development  of  the  cedar 
galls.” 

Giddings  and  Neal  (1912,  p.  258)  found  it  possible  to 
control  this  rust  by  spraying  with  lime-sulphur,  Bordeaux 
mixture,  or  atomic  sulphur. 


Apple  Rust 


9 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Fulton  (1913,  p.  62)  carried  out  some  experiments  on  in- 
fection of  apple  leaves  by  rust.  He  concludes  that,  “Each 
leaf  is  most  susceptible  during  a brief  period  only,  in  its  de- 
velopment, and  that  at  younger  and  older  stages  it  is  less 
susceptible  or  entirely  immune.”  He  says,  “From  the  first 
swelling  of  the  gelatinous  horns  to  the  formation  of  infec- 
tion spores  about  24  hours  of  moisture  are  required,”  but  this 
must  be  an  error  since  we  have  records  of  abundant  sporidia 
discharge,  under  normal  field  conditions,  within  6 to  8 hours 
after  it  first  began  to  rain.  (See  page  F4>)  \ I 


Reed,  Cooley  and  Crabill  (1914)  secured  good  results  by 
spraying,  but  concluded  that  it  was  far  more  practical  to  de- 
stroy the  cedar  trees  for  p2  mile  around  orchards.  They 
found  a copper-lime-sulphur  spray  to  be  especially  effective. 
This  publication  also  states  that,  “The  apple  leaf  is  only  sus- 
ceptible to  infection  with  cedar  rust  during  its  early  period  of 
development.”  They  report  a continuous  discharge  of  sporidia 
for  more  than  five  days  after  a rain,  but  this  hardly  seems 
possible. 

Reed  and  Crabill  (1915,  p.  180)  report  that  respiration  is 
increased  in  leaves  which  are  infected  with  Gymno sporangium. 


DISTRIBUTION. 

This  rust  appears  to  be  widely  distributed  through  the 
central  and  eastern  portions  of  the  United  States,  and  has  been 
found  in  Ontario,  Canada. 

Rust  on  apple  species  has  been  reported  from  the  fol- 
lowing states : 

Alabama 
Arkansas 
Colorado 
Delaware 
Dist.  of  Columbia 
Florida 
Georgia 
Illinois 
Indiana 
Iowa 
Kansas 
Kentucky 


Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

New  Jersey 

New  York 

North  Carolina 


Ohio 

Oklahoma 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode  Island 
South  Carolina 
South  Dakota 
Tennessee 
V ermont 
Virginia 
W est  Virginia 
Wisconsin 


10 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


DESTRUCTIVENESS. 

As  previously  stated  this  disease  has  caused  enormous 
losses  to  fruit  growers  in  West  Virginia.  It  was  especially 
destructive  in  1912  and  the  crop  of  York  Imperial  apples  was 
an  entire  failure  in  many  orchards.  The  trees  were  well 
loaded  with  fruit,  but  it  was  of  such  inferior  quality  that  it 
hardly  paid  for  the  cost  of  picking.  Actual  fruit  losses 
ranging  from  $2,000.00  to  $3,000.00  per  orchard,  and  due 
entirely  to  rust,  were  very  common  through  the  eastern  por- 
tion of  the  state  that  season,  while  there  were  many  smaller 
losses  and  some  larger  ones. 

The  injury  resulting  from  apple  rust  is  apparent  in  three 
ways:  1.  The  loss  due  to  infected  fruit.  2.  Decreased  size  of 
fruit.  3.  Loss  of  vigor  of  tree.  Nearly  all  of  the  fruit  in- 
fections take  place  in  the  calyx  end,  and  this  is  not  surprising 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  apple  is  inverted,  calyx  end  up, 
until  about  one  month  after  blooming,  and  but  comparatively 
few  rust  spores  are  disseminated  after  that  time.  During 
the  time  that  the  apple  is  in  this  inverted  position  the  sporidia 
of  the  rust  fungus  find  easy  lodgement  in  the  depression 
around  the  calyx  or  even  in  the  so-called  calyx  cup,  and  mois- 
ture readily  collects  there  so  that  conditions  for  their  germi- 
nation are  almost  ideal.  Many  diseased  fruits  find  their  way 
into  the  barrels,  but  they  are  more  likely  to  be  seconds  than 
firsts,  and  a considerable  number  are  so  deformed  as  to  be 
thrown  in  with  the  culls.  (See  frontispiece.)  A large  pro- 
portion of  rusted  fruits  become  infected  with  secondary  rot 
fungi,  and  this  entails  much  loss. 

A question  soon  raised  by  apple  buyers  was  whether  or 
not  the  disease  would  spread  in  storage.  While  we  were  cer- 
tain that  it  did  not  spread,  no  statements  could  be  found  in 
regard  to  it.  In  order  that  we  might  cite  definite  evidence 
along  that  line  the  following  series  of  experiments  was  con- 
ducted : 

A box  was  packed  with  164  Ben  Davis  apples,  59  of 
which  were  rusted  fruits,  scattered  among  the  healthy  ones. 
In  another  box  57  rusted  Ben  Davis  apples  were  mixed  with 
132  sound  Rome  apples.  A third  box  was  packed  with  30 
Rome,  23  healthy  Ben  Davis,  and  53  rusted  Ben  Davis  apples. 
The  healthy  Ben  Davis  and  Rome  apples  were  wounded  with 
a sterile  knife  and  a rusted  Ben  Davis  was  placed  with  the 


Apple  Rust 


11 


[Aug.,  1915] 


diseased  portion  in  contact  with  the  wounded  spots  on  the 
healthy  apples.  In  a fourth  box  were  packed  10  Ben  Davis 
and  18  Rome  apples  each  of  which  had  been  inoculated  by 
placing  a mature  aecium  in  a slit  in  the  flesh.  In  still  another 
box  were  placed  31  rust  diseased  apples  which  showed  no 
indication  of  aecia,  and  in  the  same  box  were  packed  25  apples 
which  had  partially  developed  aecia.  The  surface  areas  of  the 
rust  spots  on  about  50  of  these  apples  were  marked  off  with 
india  ink.  All  of  the  boxes  were  placed  in  cold  storage  at 
about  34°  to  38°  F. 


The  apples  were  placed  in  storage  the  26th  of  November, 

1910.  They  were  examined  January  31st,  1911,  and  May  18th, 

1911.  There  was  no  indication  of  any  vital  activity  on  the 
part  of  the  rust.  No  additional  fruits  developed  rust ; no 
aecia  had  developed ; there  was  no  change  in  appearance  of 
partially  developed  aecia ; and  no  increase  in  surface  area  on 
infected  fruits.  Cutting  open  such  diseased  apples,  there  was 
in  many  cases,  a brown,  somewhat  corky  layer  surrounding 
the  rust  diseased  tissue.  There  was  considerable  evidence  of 
the  activity  of  secondary  fungi  attacking  the  apples  by  way 
of  these  rust  spots. 


Other  boxes  of  apples  prepared  and  handled  in  the  same 
way  as  those  just  described  were  placed  in  storage  at  40°  to 
50°  F.  and  the  results  were  similar  except  that  a greater 
amount  of  rot  developed. 

The  second  way  in  which  the  loss  from  rust  becomes  ap- 
parent is  through  the  decreased  size  of  fruits.  In  the  case  of 
infections  which  are  at  all  severe  the  size  of  all  the  apples, 
sound  as  well  as  rusted,  is  reduced  very  appreciably.  (Plate 
V,  fig.  3.)  More  detailed  statements  in  regard  to  this  phase 
of  the  disease  will  be  given  under  another  heading. 

The  third  injurious  effect  noted  in  diseased  trees  is  the 
weakened  vigor  of  the  tree  itself.  This  effect  may  persist  to 
a very  noticeable  extent  for  at  least  two  seasons  after  a serious 
outbreak  of  rust.  It  will  be  dealt  with  in  more  detail  on 
another  page. 


12 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  I. 

Pig.  1 — Rust  gall  of  Gy mno sporangium  juniperi-virginianae  on  red 
cedar,  with  mature  teliosori.  These  sori  have  never  been  mois- 
tened. (About  % natural  size.) 

Fig.  2 — Same  gall  as  shown  at  right  in  Fig.  1,  hut  after  moistening 
for  about  3 hours.  (About  % natural  size.) 

Fig.  3 — Mature  teleutospores  with  pedicels.  (X  240). 

Fig.  4 — Teleutospores  taken  1 hour  and  20  minutes  after  first  mois- 
tening. Note  early  development  of  promycelium.  (X  240). 

Fig.  5 — Teleutospores  taken  1 hour  and  45  minutes  after  first  mois- 
tening a sorus.  The  promycelium  is  well  developed.  (X  240). 

Fig.  6 — Teleutospores  taken  2 hours  and  15  minutes  after  first  mois- 
tening a sorus.  The  promycelium  has  divided  into  four  cells 
with  distinct  walls  and  nuclei.  (X  240). 


LIFE  HISTORY. 

Gy  mno  sporangium  juniperi-virginianae  is  a heteroecious 
rust  having  the  red  cedar,  Juniperius  vir ginianae , and  species 
of  apple,  Malus,  as  hosts.  On  the  red  cedar  it  appears  in  the 
form  of  corky  galls,  commonly  known  as  “cedar  apples.” 
(Plate  III,  fig.  5.)  In  this  latitude  the  galls  first  become  ap- 
parent during  June,  continue  to  grow  through  the  summer, 
and  have  almost  reached  maturity  by  late  autumn.  With  the 
first  warm  weather  of  spring  they  develop  numerous  brownish 
projections  known  as  sori.  (Plate  I,  fig.  1.)  Each  sorus  is 
composed  of  numerous  two-celled  teliospores  more  or  less 
imbedded  in  a gelatinous  matrix.  (Plate  I,  fig.  3.) 

Under  favorable  weather  conditions,  with  sufficient  mois- 
ture, these  sori  swell  into  large,  finger-like  projections.  Each 
cell  of  a teliospore  may  then  send  out  a promycelium.  This 
promycelium  quickly  divides  into  four  cells,  each  of  which 
produces  a secondary  spore  or  sporidium.  (Plate  I,  figs.  4 
to  6.)  As  soon  as  the  humidity  decreases  enough  to  cause 
appreciable  evaporation  the  sporidia  are  forcibly  discharged 
as  stated  by  Coons  (1912,  p.  230)*. 

The  teliospores  do  not  all  germinate  at  once  and  sporidia 
may  be  discharged  several  times  during  the  season.  They  are 
readily  carried  about  by  air  currents  and  deposited  on  the 

*The  forcible  ejection  of  sporidia  was  independently  observed  by  the  senior 
author  during  the  spring  of  1912.  In  a number  of  cases  it  was  noted  that  there 
was  an  abrupt  sidewise  movement  of  the  sporidium  several  seconds  previous  to 
its  discharge.  This  movement  was  believed  to  indicate  the  rupturing  of  an  outer 
wall  or  membrane  at  the  base  of  the  sporidium.  but  the  studies  were  not  made  in 
sufficient  detail  to  warrant  any  general  conclusions. 


14 


W.  V a.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

PLATE  II. 

Fig.  1 — Teleutospores  taken  3 hours  after  first  moistening  a sorus. 
Note  sporidia  formation.  (X  240). 

Fig.  2 — Sporidia  discharged  upon  slide  3 hours  and  15  minutes  after 
first  moistening.  (X  240).  In  several  instances  there  was 
abundant  discharge  in  less  than  3 hours,  but  photographs 
were  not  secured. 

Fig.  3 — Mature  rust  spots  on  apple  leaf.  Upper  surface  view.  (Re- 
duced.) 

Fig.  4 — Upper  surface  of  rust  spot  on  apple  leaf  16  days  after  inocu- 
lation. Note  exudate  from  pycnia.  (X  11.5). 

Fig.  5 — Upper  surface  of  rust  spot  on  apple  leaf  20  days  after  inocu- 
lation. Exudation  has  ceased  from  most  of  the  pycnia  and 
they  have  turned  black.  (X  11.5). 

Fig.  6 — Pycniospores.  (X  240). 


foliage  of  any  nearby  apple  trees.  Sporidia  which  find  their 
way  to  the  young  foliage  or  fruit  of  susceptible  apple  varieties, 
under  favorable  weather  conditions,  will  germinate  and  enter 
the  host  tissues. 

The  rust  spots  first  become  visible  upon  the  upper  sur- 
face of  the  leaves,  and  in  about  ten  days  after  infection  has 
taken  place.* 

At  this  time  they  are  pale  yellow  spots  about  the  size  of 
a pin  head.  They  assume  a darker  shade  of  yellow  as  they 
enlarge.  (Plate  II,  fig.  3.)  On  some  of  the  more  susceptible 
varieties  these  spots  sometimes  become  half  an  inch  in  dia- 
meter by  the  end  of  the  season. 

In  about  two  weeks  after  the  first  appearance  of  the  spots, 
little  raised  specks  appear  near  the  center  of  them.  (Plate  II, 
fig.  4.)  These  are  the  openings  of  the  flask  shaped  pycnia. 
The  sticky,  dark  orange  exudate  which  may  be  seen  on  the 
rust  spot  at  about  this  time  contains  the  pycniospores.  (Plate 
II,  fig.  6.)  As  far  as  is  known  they  have  no  important  bear- 
ing on  the  life  history  of  this  fungus.  Soon  after  the  pycnio- 
spores have  been  discharged,  the  pycnia  become  apparent  as 
small  black  spots.  (Plate  II,  fig  5.) 

On  the  lower  surface  of  the  spot,  hypertrophy  takes  place, 
producing  a swelling  considerably  elevated  above  the  normal 

*Our  records  show  that  inoculation  made  April  14,  1913,  gave  clearly  visible 
spots  in  16  days,  while  the  infection  which  took  place  May  15th  produced  spots 
in  12  days.  In  1914,  the  April  26th  infection  became  apparent  in  11  days  and 
visible  spots  developed  from  the  May  5th  infection  in  9 days. 


W.  V a.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


16 


PLATE  III. 

Fig.  1 — Mature  rust  spots  on  apple  leaf.  Lower  surface  view.  (Re- 
duced.) 

Fig.  2 — Young  aeciosori.  Taken  64  days  after  inoculation.  (X  5). 

Fig.  3 — Mature  aeciosori.  They  are  open  and  many  of  the  aeciospores 
are  gone.  (X  11.5). 

Fig.  4 — Aeciospores.  (X  240). 

Fig.  5 — Cedar  twig  with  numerous  galls  of  various  sizes. 


leaf  surface.  During  the  months  of  July  and  August  bodies 
known  as  cluster  cups,  which  bear  the  aeciospores,  break 
through  these  swellings.  (Plate  III,  fig.  2.)  The  aeciospores 
of  this  fungus  are  not  capable  of  producing  reinfection  of  the 
apple,  but  may  be  carried  back  to  the  cedar  where  they  lodge 
in  the  axils  of  the  tiny  leaf  scales,  producing  an  infection  in 
the  young  growth  of  the  cedar.  No  outward  indication  of 
such  cedar  infection  can  be  observed  until  the  following 
season. 


CONDITIONS  INFLUENCING  INFECTION 
OF  APPLE. 

It  was  believed  that  a more  definite  knowledge  of  the 
conditions  which  bring  about  rust  infection  of  the  apple  under 
field  conditions  would  be  of  value,  and  some  attention  has 
been  devoted  to  this  matter.  These  conditions  readily  fall 
under  four  main  heads: 

1.  Development  of  rust  galls  on  the  cedar. 

2.  Meteorological  conditions. 

3.  Development  of  apple  foliage. 

4.  Location  of  orchard  in  relation  to  cedars. 

The  normal  rust  galls  of  G.  juniperi  virginianae  as  they 
occur  on  the  red  cedar  in  West  Virginia  are  capable  of  dis- 
charging large  numbers  of  sporidia  at  almost  any  time  from 
the  first  of  April  to  the  first  of  June.  This  period  varies  con- 
siderably with  different  seasons,  but  the  fruiting  bodies  are 
always  well  developed  by  the  time  that  the  apple  buds  begin 


18 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


to  open,  and  slight  rust  infections  often  occur  as  late  as  the 
first  week  in  June. 

The  ability  of  the  rust  galls  to  produce  and  discharge 
sporidia  is  closely  associated  with  meteorological  conditions. 
Considerable  difficulty  was  experienced  in  our  endeavors  to 
accurately  determine  the  interrelation  of  meteorological  fac- 
tors with  infection  periods.  Some  general  notes  were  made 
as  to  weather  conditions  during  the  season  of  1912.  These 
records  were  as  good  as  could  reasonably  be  secured  under 
the  circumstances.  Data  covering  the  critical  period  for  that 
season  shows  that  there  was  fair  weather  from  the  first  to  the 
fifth  of  May,  a light  shower  on  the  afternoon  of  May  5th,  fairly 
heavy  rains  from  the  afternoon  of  May  6th  to  the  afternoon  of 
May  8th,  and  fair  weather  from  the  9th  to  the  11th.  The  im- 
portant rust  infection  for  1912  took  place  between  the  even- 
ing of  the  6th  and  the  afternoon  of  the  8th  of  May.  There 
was  a slight  earlier  infection  and  another  about  the  last  of 
May  or  the  first  of  June. 

During  the  season  of  1913  a barograph  and  a*  hygrother- 
mograph  were  added  to  our  meteorological  equipment.  (Plate 
IX,  fig.  2.)  This  gave  us  a continuous  record  as  to  the  tem- 
perature, humidity,  and  atmospheric  pressure.  Cold,  rainy 
weather  was  prevalent  most  of  the  time  from  April  10th  to 
16th  and  considerable  numbers  of  sporidia  were  discharged 
on  the  13th.  The  recording  instruments  were  not  set  up  until 
April  14th  so  that  we  do  not  know  the  exact  thermal  and 
moisture  conditions  associated  with  the  spore  discharge  on 
that  date.  It  might  be  noted  that  there  were  very  few  apple 
leaves  infected  at  this  time  and  this  is  readily  accounted  for 
by  the  fact  that  measurements  of  a number  of  buds  in  differ- 
ent sections  of  the  orchard  on  April  15th  showed  their  average 
length  to  be  only  inch  to  inch. 

April  18th  there  was  a thunder  shower,  but  this  had  little 
effect  on  the  cedar  galls. 

York  Imperial  apple  trees  were  in  full  bloom  April  25th 
and  26th. 

April  27th  there  was  an  intermittent  rain  throughout  the 
day  and  there  had  been  some  the  preceding  night,  but  there 
was  no  evidence  of  sporidia  discharge  or  apple  leaf  infection 
as  a result.  The  relatively  low,  and  decreasing  temperature 
which  prevailed  during  that  day  and  until  ten  o’clock  the 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Apple  Rust 


19 


next  morning,  may  have  prevented  sporidia  discharge,  until 
the  sori  had  dried  up  sufficiently  to  hinder  it. 

A section  of  the  chart  showing  humidity  and  tempera- 
ture for  that  period  is  reproduced  below : 


Hygrothermograph  record  from  Friday,  April  25th  to  Monday,  April  28th,  1913. 


There  was  no  more  rain  until  the  morning  of  May  14th 
but  it  continued  for  about  three  to  five  hours  at  that  time. 
In  the  afternoon  it  was  cloudy  and  sporidia  were  discharged 
from  the  cedar  apples  in  great  numbers.  White  cards  ex- 
posed just  below  good  sized  rust  galls  showed  a very  distinct 
yellow  coating  in  two  hours.  There  was  no  evidence  of  apple 
infection  as  a result  of  the  sporidia  discharge  which  took 
place  that  afternoon.  Twigs  of  York  Imperial  apple  trees 
that  were  covered  with  sacks  on  the  morning  of  May  15th 
were  as  well  protected  from  the  rust  as  others  right  beside 
them  which  were  sacked  on  the  14th.  Conversely,  twigs 
which  had  been  previously  sacked  for  two  weeks  to  exclude 
rust  infection  and  which  were  uncovered  on  May  14th,  showed 
no  more  rust  than  similar  twigs  uncovered  on  the  15th.  This 
can.  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  quiet  condition  of  the  air 
during  the  afternoon  of  May  14th.  In  the  weather  records 
covering  that  day  it  is  stated  as  impossible  to  detect  any  air 


20 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

stirring  during  the  afternoon.  It  should  be  noted  that  these 
apple  trees  were  within  ten  rods  of  large  cedars  which  were 
literally  loaded  with  rust  galls. 

It  rained  again  during  the  night  of  May  14th-15th,  and 
there  was  abundant  sporidia  discharge  from  about  10  A.  M. 
to  2 P.  M.  of  the  15th.  The  only  serious  rust  infection  for 
the  season  of  1913  occurred  at  this  time.  There  was  a light 
wind  and  it  was  somewhat  variable. 

The  humidity  gradually  dropped  about  15%  during  the 
period  of  the  most  active  sporidia  discharge  on  May  14th, 
and  there  was  a slight  raise  in  temperature  during  that  period. 
Similar  data  may  be  noted  on  the  chart  for  May  15th,  except 
that  the  drop  in  humidity  was  considerably  greater  and  the 
rise  in  temperature  was  more  pronounced  than  on  the  previous 
day.  A section  of  chart  showing  tracings  for  May  14th  and 
15th,  1913,  is  shown  below: 

TUESDAY"  WEDNESDAY  THURSDAY  FRII 


HUMIDITY  HOUR  LINES  INDICATED  IN  BOTTOM  MARGIN 


Hygrothermograph  record  from  Tuesday,  May  13th  to  Friday,  May  16th,  1913. 

Rain  occurred  again  on  May  17th,  but  there  was  no  evi- 
dence of  infection  following  it.  Twigs  which  had  previously 
been  sacked  and  were  uncovered  on  the  16th  were  as  well 
protected  as  those  uncovered  on  the  19th.  The  humidity  and 


Apple  Rust 


21 


[Aug.,  1915] 


temperature  conditions  would  appear  to  have  been  very  good 
for  sporidia  discharge,  but  we  have  no  records  as  to  air 
movements.  It  is  possible  that  many  sporidia  were  set  free 
and  that  they  settled  quickly  to  the  ground  as  on  May  14th, 
but  it  is  far  more  likely  that  only  a very  few  were  discharged, 
since  the  sori  on  the  cedar  galls  were  much  reduced  in  size 
and  evidently  becoming  exhausted.  Careful  observations  as 
to  actual  spore  discharge  were  not  made  on  this  date.  The 
section  of  chart  for  May  17th  and  18th  is  given  below: 


FRIDAY  SATURDAY  SUNDAY  NfONDj! 


HUMIDITY  HOUR  LINES  INDICATED  IN  BOTTOM  MARGIN 


Hygrothermograph.  record  from  Friday,  May  16th  to  Monday,  May  19th,  1913. 

Local  showers  occurred  on  the  21st  and  22nd,  but  were 
of  short  duration,  and  did  not  have  much  effect  on  the  cedar 
galls.  May  23rd  there  was  rain  all  day,  but  the  hygrothermo- 
graph  records  covering  that  date  are  incomplete,  and  no 
special  observations  were  made  as  to  discharge  of  sporidia. 
It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  there  was  a light  west  to 
northwest  wind  recorded  for  the  23rd  and  24th  and  our  sack- 
ing experiments  gave  strong  evidence  that  no  infection  took 
place  on  these  dates. 

It  began  raining  again  on  the  evening  of  May  26th  and 
continued  most  of  the  time  during  that  night  and  the  next 
day  A very  considerable  number  of  apple  leaves  became  in- 


22 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  IV. 

Cedar  tree  bearing  a great  number  of  good  sized  galls. 


fectecl  with  rust  on  the  27th  and  possibly  a few  received  in- 
fection on  the  28th.  It  is  believed  that  the  principal  and 
possibly  the  only  sporidia  discharge  took  place  between  4 and 
7 P.  M.  on  Tuesday,  the  27th.  A drop  in  humidity  and  a rise 
in  temperature  will  be  noted  for  that  period  in  the  chart  below : 


MONDAY  TUESDAY  WEDNESDAY 


HUMIDITY  HOUR  LINES  INDICATED  IN  BOTTOM  MARGIN 


Hygrothermograpli  chart  from  Monday,  May  26th  to  Thursday,  May  29th,  1913. 


24 


W.  Ya.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

Practically  all  of  the  sori  dried  up  and  dropped  off  from 
the  cedar  galls  soon  after  this  date  and  no  further  observa- 
tions were  made  on  them. 


The  importance  of  the  wind  in  dissemination  of  rust,  and 
the  difficulty  of  making  accurate  observations  along  this  line, 
was  clearly  shown  by  the  work  during  1913.  In  order  to  se- 
cure such  data  our  meteorological  equipment  was  again  in- 
creased by  securing  a quadruple  register,  tipping  bucket  rain 
gauge,  electric  sunshine  recorded,  anemometer,  and  wind 
vane.  (Plate  X.)  This  outfit  gave  almost  continuous  records 
as  to  rainfall,  sunshine,  wind  velocity  and  wind  direction.  The 
practical  data  secured  with  the  aid  of  these  instruments  dur- 
ing the  past  season  is  very  valuable,  and  careful  observations 
continued  for  the  next  few  years  should  yield  reliable  infor- 
mation of  very  great  value  in  connection  with  the  study  of 
this  disease,  and  possibly  of  others.  Our  records  for  the  grow- 
ing season  of  1914  begin  with  April  23rd  and  are  very  nearly 
complete.  The  clock  in  the  hygrothermograph  was  permitted 
to  run  down  at  the  time  when  one  rust  infection  was  taking- 
place;  and  two  of  the  hygrothermograph  records  have  been 
lost. 


There  was  no  rain  from  April  21st  to  April  25th.  It 
began  raining  the  morning  of  April  25th  and  continued  inter- 
mittently all  day.  This  was  followed  by  very  heavy  showers 
in  the  evening  and  a steady  rain  which  lasted  until  9 A.  M., 
April  26th.  Sporidia  were  discharged  in  great  numbers  be- 
tween 9 A.  M.  and  12  noon  on  Sunday,  April  26th. 
The  quadruple  register  records  for  this  period  of  spore  dis- 
charge show  a variable  wind  having  a general  southeast  to 
southwest  direction ; an  average  wind  velocity  of  about  four 
miles  per  hour ; and  continuous  sunshine  after  10  A.  M.  Sec- 
tions from  this  chart  are  shown  below : 


Sections  of  quadruple  register  chart  showing  wind  direction,  wind  velocity, 
rainfall,  and  sunshine  from  8 A.  M.  April  26th,  to  10  :30  A.  M.  April  26th,  1914. 
A,  indicates  wind  direction  ; B,  wind  velocity  ; C,  rain  until  9 A.  M.  and  sunshine 
after  10  A.  M. 


Apple  Rust 


25 


{Aug.,  1915] 


The  hygrothermograph  record  shows  a rather  rapid  fall 
in  humidity  and  an  equally  abrupt  rise  in  temperature.  The 
section  of  the  chart  for  Saturday,  April  25th  and  Sunday, 
April  26th  is  given: 

AY  SATURDAY  SUNDAY  MONDAY 


TEMPERATURE  HOUR  LINES  INDICATED  IN  TOP  MARGIN 


HUMIDITY  HOUR  LIMES  INDICATED  IN  BOTTOM  MARGIN 


Hygrothermograph  record  from  Friday,  April  24th  to  Monday,  April  27th,  1914. 


A general  infection  of  apple  foliage  took  place  at  this 
time,  but  it  was  not  serious  because  there  were  only  a few 
leaves  unfolded.  The  blossom  buds  were  just  beginning  to 
show  color  on  April  26th  and  the  central  blossom  did  not 
open  until  May  1st.  The  leaves  which  enclose  the  blossom 
cluster  were  opened  out  sufficiently  to  receive  infection  and 
it  was  very  noticeable  on  all  of  the  trees  sprayed  May  4th  that 
the  leaves  which  came  from  a fruit  bud  were  all  quite  heavily 
infected  while  those  from  a leaf  bud  did  not  show  as  much 
rust.  Twigs  covered  with  sacks  on  the  afternoon  of  April  26th 
and  uncovered  on  May  10th  showed  the  extent  of  this  in- 
fection. 

It  should  be  noted  that  a very  light  wind  was  sufficient 
to  disperse  the  sporidia. 

A shower  occurred  on  the  afternoon  of  April  29th,  but 
did  not  have  much  effect  on  the  cedar  galls. 


26 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

There  was  a shower  about  5 P.  M.  on  May  4th,  and  this 
was  followed  by  a light  rain  from  6:30  P.  M.  to  11  P.  M. 
The  hygrothermograph  record  covering  May  4th  and  5th 
showed  a drop  of  10  to  15%  in  humidity  between  midnight 
and  2 A.  M.  May  5th.  It  began  raining  again  at  about  2:30 
A.  M.  May  5th  and  continued  until  10  A.  M.  of  the  same  day. 


Sections  of  the  record  from  the  quadruple  register  are 
given  below : 


i Mi  c 

J 

1 1 

I 

j 1 
i J 

LJm  ] j.  i j"  I j 

1 1 i 1 1 

i 

1 

\i 

J 

1 

A ••• 

H 

rtH 

••••  J.. .. dk*. . 4*. 

pd-4— t— +" 

d 

t 

'ZZZ 

c - 

-ir 

U” 

“i 

Ttirr~r 

L 

P 

M 

X 

zjr 

Sections  of  quadruple  register  record  from  midnight  May  4th  to  2 :45  A.  M. 
May  5th,  1914.  A,  indicates  wind  direction ; B,  wind  velocity ; C,  sunshine 
line  ; D,  rainfall. 


York  Imperial  twigs  sacked  immediately  after  it  stopped 
raining  on  the  morning  of  May  5th  were  just  as  badly  diseased 
with  rust  as  unprotected  twigs  on  the  same  tree.  Trees 
sprayed  about  11  A.  M.  that  day  showed  just  as  much  rust 
as  unsprayed  trees.  The  sporidia  discharge  had  occurred 
between  12  and  2 :30  A.  M.  May  5th  and  the  infection  of  apple 
foliage  and  fruit  had  evidently  taken  place  at  once.  The  wind 
which  carried  the  sporidia  was  in  a general  southwest  direc- 
tion, varying  to  south  and  with  a velocity  of  about  ten  miles 
per  hour.  Infection  was  general  and  quite  severe. 

There  was  no  evidence  of  sporidia  discharge  during  the 
forenoon  of  May  5th,  although  careful  observations  were 
made  by  exposing  large  watch  glasses  near  the  cedar  galls 
for  from  one  to  six  hours.  The  sporidia,  if  discharged  in  any 
numbers,  would  alight  on  the  watch  glass,  and  their  presence 
could  easily  be  detected  with  a microscope. 

On  May  8th  it  rained  from  about  8:30  A.  M.  until  12:30 
P.  M.  and  there  were  showers  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
afternoon  and  until  7 :30  P.  M.  Sporidia  were  discharged 
during  the  night  but  there  was  no  evidence  of  infection  oc- 
curring at  this  time.  The  wind  direction  was  extremely  vari- 
able during  the  night  of  May  8th  and  9th  and  its  velocity  was 
only  \]/2  to  2 miles  per  hour.  It  is  probable  that  the  sporidia 
dropped  to  the  ground  before  they  had  been  carried  far  from 
the  sori  which  produced  them. 

There  was  another  shower  late  in  the  afternoon  on  May 
12th,  but  it  was  of  short  duration  and  no  sporidia  discharge 


Apple  Rust 


27 


[Aug.,  1915] 


was  noted.  Light  showers  occurred  on  May  28th,  30th,  and 
31st,  but  no  evidence  of  sporidia  discharge  or  infection  was 
noted  as  a result.  The  humidity  ranged  very  low  throughout 
the  period  from  May  12th  to  June  4th  and  the  temperature 
was  comparatively  high  most  of  the  time. 


It  rained  during  the  forenoon  of  June  4th,  and  beginning 
again  at  about  4 P.  M.  that  day,  it  rained  intermittently  all 
night.  There  was  a slight,  but  rather  general  infection  of 
apple  rust  at  this  time.  The  wind  direction  was  south  vary- 
ing to  southwest,  but  both  wind  velocity  and  humidity  records 
covering  this  period  happened  to  be  incomplete. 

The  sori  on  the  cedar  rust  galls  were  nearly  exhausted 
by  this  date,  and  there  was  no  further  evidence  of  sporidia 
discharge  or  infection. 


These  observations  and  records  have  not  been  continued 
for  a sufficient  length  of  time  to  warrant  drawing  definite 
conclusions  as  to  the  exact  relation  of  meteorological  factors 
to  sporidia  discharge  and  infection.  A few  points  which 
seem  particularly  worthy  of  mention  are:  (1)  That,  so  far  as 
our  records  go,  there  has  been  a drop  in  humidity  every  time 
that  sporidia  have  been  discharged ; (2)  That  the  sori  appear 
particularly  active  after  a prolonged  dry  spell,  and  seem  to 
be  temporarily  exhausted  by  two  or  three  closely  successive 
sporidia  discharges : (3)  That  there  may  be  a very  heavy 

discharge  of  sporidia  without  any  general  infection  of  apple 
foliage  or  fruit : (4)  That  an  infection  may  take  place  during 
the  night,  under  conditions  which  would  have  proven  very 
deceptive  and  confusing  without  careful  and  exact  records. 
Such  an  infection  occurred  the  night  of  May  4th  to  5th,  1914. 

The  development  or  stage  of  growth  of  the  apple  foliage 
is  a very  important  factor  in  determining  the  amount  of  in- 
fection. Under  West  Virginia  conditions  many  sporidia  are 
likely  to  be  disseminated  before  the  leaves  have  unfolded 
sufficiently  to  receive  infection.  Careful  field  and  laboratory 
experiments  have  shown  that  natural  infection  may  take  place 
on  York  Imperial  leaves  just  as  soon  as  they  have  unfolded 
enough  to  expose  any  portion  of  their  upper  surface,*  although 
this  does  not  agree  with  Fulton  (1913,  p.  64.)  Inoculation  ex- 
periments conducted  in  1914  gave  no  infection  on  the  lower 

*From  our  experience,  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the  inoculation  of  very 
young  leaves  may  be  accomplished  to  better  advantage  by  carrying  the  freshly 
discharged  sporidia  on  to  the  leaf  in  an  air  current,  rather  than  by  using  liquid 
suspensions. 


28 


W.  Va.  Agr’e.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  V. 

Fig.  1 — Rust  galls  of  various  sizes  with  expanded,  gelatinous  sori. 
Note  small  galls  on  single  needles  at  right.  (About  natural 
size.) 

Fig.  2 — Larger  rust  galls  with  expanded,  gelatinous  sori.  (About 
natural  size.) 

Fig.  3 — Apples  from  trees  with  one  side  rust  infection  in  1912.  The 
two  at  right  were  largest  on  side  which  showed  least  infec- 
tion, while  the  two  at  left  were  largest  on  badly  infected  side. 
Collected  about  August  1,  1912. 


leaf  surface,  as  was  reported  by  Coons  (1912,  p.  221).  Sporidia 
in  suspension  were  used  for  this  work,  and  good  infections 
were  secured  on  upper  leaf  surfaces  under  the  same  conditions. 
Inoculation  experiments  early  in  the  season  of  1912  and  re- 
peated in  1913  gave  severe  infections  of  leaves  which  were 
just  beginning  to  unfold.  These  inoculations,  however,  were 
made  by  gently  rubbing  the  young  leaves  with  gelatinous 
teliosori. 

The  gradual  development  of  resistance,  or  immunity  in 
the  leaf  is  very  striking  and  extremely  important,  and  Reed 
(1914,  p.  15)  gives  some  records  of  it.  There  were  two  rust 
infections  in  1911.  We  do  not  know  the  exact  dates  when 
they  occurred,  but  one  was  probably  just  as  the  first  blossoms 
were  about  to  open  and  the  other  not  until  the  latter  part  of 
May.  The  terminal  growth  on  York  Imperial  twigs  during 
that  season  commonly  showed  nine  large  leaves.  The  first 
three  and  last  three  leaves  on  such  a growth  were  rust  in- 
fected, while  between  them  were  three  leaves  free  from  rust. 
This  was  very  noticeable,  and  was  commented  upon  by  many 
orchard  men.  The  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  leaves  must  have 
been  immune  at  the  time  that  the  three  youngest  leaves  were 
infected. 

The  same  thing  is  clearly  shown  in  Table  XII.  At  the 
time  when  the  important  infection  took  place  in  1913,  the  first 
three  to  five  large  leaves  had  become  immune.  Table  XV 
indicates  this  in  relation  to  the  Tune  4th  and  5th  infection 
of  1914. 

Stewart  (1910,  p.  317)  says,  “The  spring  of  1903  was  very 
dry  at  Riverhead,  Long  Island.  There  was  no  precipitation 


3 


30 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

of  any  importance  between  April  16th  and  June  8th.  As  a 
consequence,  there  was  no  opportunity  for  the  infection  of 
apple  leaves  until  June  8th  and  9th  on  which  dates  there  were 
heavy  showers  and  the  cedar  apples  became  swollen  into  yel- 
low gelatinous  masses  of  unusually  large  size.  Verv  little  rust 
occurred  on  the  leaves  that  year.”  Evidently  most  of  the 
leaves  had  become  immune  when  that  infection  occurred. 


During  1914,  records  were  kept  on  several  twigs  showing 
the  exact  date  when  each  leaf  finally  opened  out  from  the 
bud.  From  the  data  for  this  season  it  would  appear  that  a 
leaf  was  immune  ten  days  after  unfolding.  The  exact  time 
required  for  a leaf  to  develop  to  the  same  extent  during 
another  season  or  under  other  conditions,  might  vary  some- 
what from  this  period. 

The  points  to  be  emphasized  are  that  the  leaves  do  be- 
come immune,  (due  evidently  to  a thickening  and  hardening 
of  the  epidermal  cells,  as  well  as  to  other  chemical  and  phys- 
ical changes  in  the  interior  of  the  leaf),  and  that  a rust  in- 
fection of  destructive  proportions  can  hardly  be  expected  to 
occur  after  June  1st,  under  West  Virginia  conditions. 

A mature  leaf  may  occasionally  become  infected  through 
insect  injuries  Successful  inoculations  have  also  been  made 
in  mature  leaves  which  were  torn  or  injured  by  needle  punc- 
tures. Infections  of  this  kind  develop  very  small  spots,  and 
aecia  production  has  never  been  noted  from  them.  They  are 
not  likely  to  be  of  economic  interest. 

The  relative  locations  of  orchards  and  cedar  trees  form 
an  important  factor  in  connection  with  rust  epidemics.  Ob- 
viously, a cedar  tree  has  much  better  opportunity  for  effec- 
tive dispersal  of  rust  sporidia  when  it  is  located  on  ground 
higher  than  that  of  nearby  apple  orchards.  These  sporidia 
act  much  like  grains  of  pollen  or  particles  of  dust  when  they 
are  in  the  air.  The  distance  to  which  they  may  be  carried  is 
largely  dependent  upon  the  wind,  but  the  comparative  ele- 
vation from  which  they  start,  and  objects  which  may  inter- 
cept them,  must  also  be  considered.  McCarthy  (1893,  p.  86) 
states  that  mature  spores  may  be  carried  for  four  miles  in  an 
unusually  high  wind.  Thaxter,  (1891,  p.  3)  says,  “Although 
it  has  been  shown  that  infection  from  cedars  may  take  place 
at  a distance  of  eight  miles,  the  virulence  of  the  disease  is,  of 
course,  proportionate  to  the  proximity  of  the  cedars.”  It  is 


Apple  Rust 


31 


[Aug.,  1915] 


quite  probable  that  freshly  discharged  sporidia  are  carried 
as  far  as  eight  miles  in  a high  wind,  but  rarely,  if  ever,  would 
other  conditions  be  so  favorable  as  to  produce  an  infection 
of  economic  importance  at  that  distance  from  the  cedars. 


INFECTION  OF  CEDAR  TREES. 

The  question  has  sometimes  been  raised  as  to  how  far  an 
infection  will  be  carried  from  the  apple  to  the  cedar.  Before 
discussing  this  point,  it  should  be  stated  that  there  appears 
to  be  very  little  known  in  regard  to  the  exact  manner  of 
cedar  tree  infection,  and  the  conditions  which  bring  it  about. 
The  aeciospores,  produced  on  apple  foliage  and  fruit,  are 
considerably  larger  than  the  sporidia,  and  presumably  weigh 
more.  Under  the  same  conditions,  we  would  not  expect  the 
aeciospores  to  be  carried  as  far  as  the  sporidia.  Now,  it  would 
appear  that,  if  the  amount  of  rust  infection  in  an  apple  or- 
chard is  appreciably  reduced  by  cutting  out  the  cedars  for 
possibly  one-fourth  mile  around  it,  the  amount  of  infection 
which  would  be  carried  back  to  the  cedars  would  be  reduced 
in  even  greater  proportion. 

There  are  many  reasons  why  this  cannot  be  expected  to 
work  out  in  actual  practice.  The  four  reasons  which  we 
think  to  be  most  important  are:  1.  The  presence  of  wild 

crab,  seedling  or  neglected  common  apple  trees  near  or 
among  the  cedars.  2.  The  presence  of  small  orchards,  and 
what  might  be  termed  door-yard  apple  trees  in  the  close 
vicinity  of  the  cedars.  3.  The  probability  that  the  total  period 
during  which  aeciospores  are  distributed  is  very  many  times 
greater  than  the  total  period  of  actual  sporidia  discharge. 
4.  The  great  variation  in  meteorological  conditions.  There 
are  several  important  factors,  such  as  wind  and  rain 
which  would  be  considered  under  reason  No.  4,  and  some 
others  closely  related  to  or  associated  with  these  factors,  but 
it  hardly  seems  best  to  enter  into  an  extended  discussion  of 
these  matters. 

PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECT  OF  RUST  ON 
APPLE  TREES. 

A question  raised  early  in  our  work  on  this  disease  was 
as  to  the  effect  of  rust  on  the  general  health  of  an  apple  tree. 
It  was  believed  that  the  injurious  effects  of  a serious  rust 
infection  would  persist  during  the  season  following  such  an 
outbreak.  There  was  very  little  evidence  at  hand  in  regard 


32 


W.  Ya.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  VI. 

Fig.  1 — Apple  tree  which  suffered  from  one  sided  rust  infection  in 
1912.  Picture  taken  May  3,  1914.  Note  bloom  on  side  which 
had  least  rust  in  1912. 

Fig.  2 — Eleven  year  old  York  Imperial  apple  tree  which  has  suffered 
from  many  severe  rust  infections. 

Fig.  3 — Eleven  year  old  York  Imperial  apple  tree  which  has  not  been 
a severe  sufferer  from  rust  infections. 


to  this,  and  it  appeared  difficult  to  secure  it  since  the  infec- 
tion is  so  general  that  all  the  trees  of  any  one  variety  in  a 
given  section  are  likely  to  show  nearly  the  same  amount  of 
disease. 

Two  orchards  were  finally  found  which  may  serve  for 
some  general  comparisons.  These  orchards  were  less  than 
two  miles  apart  and  will  be  designated  as  No.  1 and  No.  2. 
The  trees  chosen  for  comparison  were  of  the  same  variety,. 
York  Imperial,  and  the  same  age,  11  years.  Orchard  No.  1 
had  received  good  care,  and  happened  to  be  so  situated  as 
not  to  have  suffered  from  very  severe  infections  of  rust.  One 
of  the  trees  in  this  orchard  is  shown  by  Plate  VI,  fig.  3.  This 
tree  was  growing  under  soil  and  drainage  conditions  as  nearly 
comparable  as  possible  with  those  of  orchard  No.  2.  Orchard 
No.  2 had  received  what  might  be  called  fair  cultural  atten- 
tion. It  had  been  plowed,  fertilized,  and  sprayed,  but  not 
quite  so  systematically  and  carefully  as  orchard  No.  1.  This 
orchard  was  not  over  ten  or  fifteen  acres  in  area  and  there 
were  cedar  trees  within  two  rods  of  it  on  every  side.  There 
were  quite  a number  of  large  cedar  trees,  twenty  to  thirty 
feet  high,  within  ten  to  twenty  rods  of  the  orchard,  and 
many  small  cedars  on  all  sides.  In  1913,  when  particular 
note  was  first  taken  of  this  orchard,  the  cedar  trees  around 
it  were  practically  loaded  down  with  rust  galls.  A typical 
York  Imperial  tree  in  orchard  No.  2 is  shown  by  Plate  VI, 
fig.  2.  There  were  about  equal  numbers  of  York  Imperial 
and  of  Ben  Davis  apple  trees  in  the  last  mentioned  orchard. 
The  trees  of  both  varieties  were  the  same  age  and  had  re- 
ceived the  same  care,  but  the  owner  reports  that  the  York 
Imperial  trees  have  not  borne  more  than  an  average  of  three 


34 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

apples  per  tree  while  the  Ben  Davis  trees  have  borne  an 
average  of  three  barrels  per  tree.  The  Ben  Davis  trees,  right 
beside  the  York  Imperials  had  made  good  growth.  They  were 
at  least  two-thirds  larger  than  the  York  Imperial  trees  and 
appeared  very  healthy. 

It  seems  safe  to  conclude  that  the  lack  of  development  of 
the  York  Imperial  apple  trees  in  orchard  No.  2 was  largely 
the  effect  of  the  serious  rust  infection  recurring  each  year. 

Another  case  which  seems  worthy  of  mention  is  that  of 
some  trees  showing  a far  more  severe  infection  on  one  side 
than  on  the  other.  This  one-sided  infection  took  place  in 
1912.  The  trees  were  York  Imperial,  about  12  years  of  age, 
in  rows  along  the  top  of  a ridge.  There  was  a considerable 
number  of  cedars  in  the  vicinity  of  the  orchard,  and  a large 
grove  of  them  a little  way  down  on  one  slope  of  the  ridge. 
A strong  wind  was  blowing  from  this  grove  into  the  orchard 
at  the  time  of  infection,  and  the  effects  of  the  disease  appeared 
to  be  at  least  twice  as  severe  on  the  side  toward  the  cedar 
grove  as  on  the  other  side.  On  the  side  where  infection  was 
greatest,  the  apples  were  not  more  than  two-thirds  as  large 
as  those  on  the  other  side.  (Plate  V,  fig.  3.) 

In  the  spring  of  1913  this  orchard  was  visited  and  it  was 
found  that  the  trees  which  showed  the  one-sided  rust  infec- 
tion in  1912  were  not  blooming  at  all  on  the  side  where  the 
disease  was  so  severe,  while  there  was  a very  fair  amount  of 
bloom  on  the  other  side.  No  good  photographs  of  the  trees 
were  secured  at  that  time.  A late  spring  frost  destroyed  all 
of  the  young  fruit  which  had  set  on  these  trees,  and  it  was 
believed  that  they  would  entirely  recover  to  their  normal 
condition  by  the  following  spring. 

The  orchard  was  visited  again  the  spring  of  1914,  and 
evidences  of  the  one-sided  rust  infection  were  still  visible  in 
the  first  four  or  five  rows  of  apple  trees  extending  along  the 
top  of  the  ridge.  Quite  a little  individual  variation  in  the 
trees  could  be  noted,  but  there  was  a very  clear  difference  be- 
tween the  two  sides.  The  bloom  was  slight  or  scattering  on 
the  side  where  rust  infection  had  been  severe,  and  was  very 
profuse  on  the  other  side.  (Plate  VI,  fig.  1.) 

The  trees  in  question  may  have  suffered  from  one-sided 
rust  infections  previous  to  1912,  but  evidence  from  observa- 
tion, or  from  the  development  of  the  trees,  does  not  indicate 


Apple  Eust 


35 


[Aug.,  1915] 


that  such  was  a regular,  or  even  frequent,  occurrence.  It 
should  be  noted  that  all  cedars  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
this  orchard  were  destroyed  during  the  winter  of  1912-13  and 
that  the  radius  of  cedar-free  territory  was  extended  during 
the  winter  of  1913-14.  Whatever  rust  infection  took  place 
in  this  orchard  during  the  past  two  seasons  was  very  uni- 
formly distributed  and  can  have  had  but  little  effect  upon 
the  one-sided  fruit  production  of  the  trees  in  question. 


Spraying  experiments,  conducted  in  1912*,  prevented 
serious  rust  infection  on  portions  of  certain  York  Imperial 
trees  in  one  orchard.  The  only  York  Imperial  bloom  observed 
in  this  orchard  in  1913  was  on  the  parts  of  trees  where  rust 
had  been  controlled  the  previous  season.  It  was  also  observed 
in  1913  that  these  portions  of  trees  retained  their  foliage 
longer  than  unsprayed  portions  of  the  same  tree  and  longer 
than  any  unsprayed  trees  in  the  orchard.  Their  condition 
was  not  noted  in  1914. 


Spraying  experiments  were  again  conducted  in  1913  but 
practically  all  of  the  young  fruits  were  destroyed  by  late 
frosts  and  general  rust  infection  was  not  so  severe  as  in  1912. 
The  number  of  leaves  showing  rust  spots  and  the  number 
not  so  diseased  were  determined  on  one  or  more  twigs  of  each 
tree  used  in  these  experiments.  This  count  was  made  about 
June  10th  and  the  two  small  leaves,  which  unfolded  first,  were 
removed  before  counting.  The  leaves  were  again  counted 
during  the  first  week  in  October,  and  from  this  count  it  was 
possible  to  determine  the  number  of  rusted  leaves  which  had 
fallen  as  compared  with  the  number  of  rust-free  ones  which 
had  fallen.  The  results  are  briefly  summarized  in  the  follow- 
ing table : 


Table  I. — Leaf  fall  as  affected  by  rust  in  1913. 

No.  leaves  No.  leaves  No.  leaves  Percent 
in  June  in  October  fallen  fallen 


Rusted  657  135  522  79.4 

Rust-free  943  522  421  44.6 

Total  1600  657  943  58.9 


This  table  includes  counts  from  ten  trees  chosen  at  ran- 
dom from  among  those  upon  which  rust  had  not  been  con- 
trolled. Detailed  tables  might  be  given,  but  they  would  show 
little  more,  and  the  data  for  1914  will  be  of  more  interest  and 

*The  1912  experiments  were  conducted  in  an  orchard  owned  by  D.  Gold  Miller 
at  Gerrardstown.  The  1913  experiments  were  conducted  in  the  orchards  of  Hon. 
George  M.  Bowers,  and  B.  Frank  Mish  at  Inwood.  The  1914  experiments  were 
conducted  in  the  orchard  of  Dr.  A.  P.  Thompson  at  Summit  Point.  Acknowledge- 
ment is  due  these  gentlemen  for  their  courtesy  to  us  in  connection  with  this  work. 


36 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  VII. 

Fig.  1 — York  Imperial  apple  tree  upon  which  rust  was  controlled  by- 
spraying  in  1913. 

Fig.  2 — York  Imperial  apple  tree  upon  which  rust  was  not  controlled 
in  1913.  This  tree  is  just  adjacent  to  the  one  shown  in  fig.  1. 


value  along  this  line.  The  effect  of  rust  control  upon  leaf  fall 
in  1913  is  indicated  by  Plate  VII,  figs.  1 and  2. 

During  the  season  of  1914  this  phase  of  the  work  was 
enlarged  to  include  the  location  of  each  leaf  in  regard  to  order 
of  opening  from  bud,  and  the  number  of  rust  spots  on  each 
• leaf  as  well  as  the  number  of  leaves.  The  two  small,  oldest 
leaves  were  removed  before  counts  were  made.  These  de- 
tailed field  counts  were  made  on  twenty-five  trees,  and  in- 
cluded about  320  leaf  clusters,  of  which  one-half  were  terminal 
growths  of  twigs.  Ten  of  the  trees  were  unsprayed,  five  had 
been  sprayed  with  lime-sulphur,  five  with  Bordeaux  mix- 
ture, and  five  with  atomic  sulphur.  The  rust  was  quite  well 
controlled  on  the  sprayed  trees. 

A sample  page  of  the  records  on  these  leaves  is  shown : 

Tree  No.  323.  Twig  No.  2 — Check.  (See  footnote  *) 
Treatment — Lime-sulphur — Block  F. 


No.  of  leaft 

....  1 

2 

3 4 

5 

6 7 

8 

9 

Terminal 

Rust 

spots.. 

....  9 

22 

9 4 

0 

0 0 

0 

8 

Growth 

Date 

fallen. 

7-30 

7-30 

10-3  10-30 

10-30 

10-& 

Side  Spur 

Rust 

spots.. 

....  8 

17 

16  0 

0 

0 

No.  10 

Date 

fallen. 

...  10-3 

7-30 

10-3  7-30 

♦This 

was  a 

check 

twig  on 

a sprayed  tree. 

fLeaf 

No.  1 

is  the 

oldest. 

The  data  from  these  records  has  been  carefully  tabulated 
and  is  given  in  condensed  form  as  Table  II.  This  table  is 
arranged  to  show  the  number  of  leaves  having  one  rust  spot,. 


38 


W.  Ya.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


the  number  having  two  rust  spots,  etc.  It  also  gives  the  num- 
ber of  such  leaves  which  had  fallen  between  specified  dates. 
For  example,  there  were  137  leaves  having  two  rust  spots  each. 
Six  of  these  leaves  fell  between  July  6th  and  August  1st;  four 
between  August  1st  and  September  1st;  22  between  Septem- 
ber 1st  and  October  1st;  and  30  between  October  1st  and 
November  1st.  There  were  62  of  these  leaves  which  dropped 
between  July  6th  and  November  1st,  1914,  and  75  leaves,  each 
showing  two  rust  spots,  still  remained  upon  the  twigs.  The 
first  counts  were  made  July  3rd  to  9th,  and  some  of  the  badly 
rusted  leaves  had  already  fallen  at  that  time.  Counts  were 
again  made  July  28-30,  August  27-30,  October  2-5  and  Oc- 
tober 30-31. 


Table  II. — Leaf  fall  as  influenced  by  the  number  of  rust  spots  per  leaf. 


Number 
spots  on 
each  leaf 

Number 
of  leaves 

Number  of  leaves  fallen  by  periods 

Total 
number  of 
leaves 
fallen 

Number  of 
leaves  on 
twig 
Nov.  1. 

July  6 to 
Aug.  1 

Aug.  1 to 
Sept.  1 

Sept.  1 to 
Oct.  1 

Oct.  1 to 
Nov.  1 

0 

832 

23 

9 

45 

122 

199 

633 

1 

266 

6 

6 

39 

65 

116 

150 

2 

137 

6 

4 

22 

30 

62 

75 

3 

75 

5 

2 

13 

12 

32 

43 

4 

82 

6 

0 

16 

20 

42 

04 

5 

56 

2 

6 

14 

10 

32 

24 

6 

60 

7 

3 

16 

13 

39 

21 

7 

47 

7 

3 

12 

8 

30 

17 

8 

39 

4 

3 

12 

9 

28 

11 

9 

29 

3 

1 

12 

3 

19 

10 

10 

28 

2 

3 

10 

4 

19 

9 

11 

21 

4 

3 

5 

5 

17 

4 

12 

25 

5 

6 

9 

3 

23 

2 

13 

26 

2 

1 

15 

3 

21 

5 

14 

26 

7 

4 

11 

2 

24 

2 

15 

27 

3 

5 

10 

6 

24 

3 

16 

23 

7 

2 

8 

3 

20 

3 

17 

25 

7 

5 

7 

3 

22 

3 

18 

21 

5 

5 

4 

6 

20 

1 

19 

17 

3 

2 

11 

0 

16 

1 

20 

16 

2 

2 

9 

2 

15 

1 

21 

23 

9 

6 

5 

3 

23 

0 

22 

18 

6 

2 

7 

1 

16 

2 

23 

13 

3 

1 

6 

3 

13 

0 

24 

23 

12 

5 

4 

2 

23 

0 

26 

29 

12 

8 

8 

1 

29 

0 

28 

29 

11 

11 

7 

0 

29 

0 

30 

28 

11 

10 

3 

4 

28 

0 

33 

33 

10 

11 

12 

0 

33 

0 

36 

26 

5 

15 

4 

2 

26 

0 

40 

29 

8 

13 

6 

2 

29 

0 

45 

28 

9 

13 

6 

0 

28 

0 

50 

13 

8 

4 

1 

0 

13 

0 

55 

17 

7 

7 

2 

1 

17 

0 

60 

10 

7 

2 

1 

0 

10 

0 

over  60 

23 

13 

7 

2 

1 

23 

0 

Totals  

2220 

1 

247 

1 

| 190 

374 

349 

1160 

1060 

Apple  Rust 


39 


Aug.,  1915] 


It  should  be  possible  from  this  table  to  get  an  indication 
as  to  how  quickly  and  how  seriously  a York  Imperial  apple 
tree  is  likely  to  be  defoliated  by  a certain  amount  of  rust 
infection  on  the  leaves.  In  order  to  bring  out  this  point,  we 
have  further  condensed  Table  II  by  dividing  the  leaves  into 
five  groups,  those  having  no  rust  spots,  those  having  one  to 
four  rust  spots,  those  having  five  to  nine  rust  spots,  those 
having  ten  to  fourteen  rust  spots.  The  results  thus  secured 
are  shown  below : 


Table  III. — Leaf  fall  as  influenced  by  number  of  rust  spots  per  leaf. 


Number  of  leaves  fallen  by  periods 


Number  of  rust  spots 
per  leaf 

Number 
of  i 

leaves 

July  6 to  Aug.  1 

Aug.  1 to  Sept.  1 

Sept.  1 to  Oct.  1 

Oct.  1 to  Nov.  1 

No. 

Percent 

No. 

Percent 

No. 

Percent 

No. 

Percent 

None  

832 

23 

3.8 

9 

1.1 

45 

5.5 

122 

14.8 

1 to  4 inc 

560 

23 

4.1 

12 

2.1 

90 

16.1 

127 

22.7 

5 to  9 inc 

231 

23 

10. 

16 

6.9 

66 

28.5 

43 

18.6 

10  to  14  inc 

126 

20 

15.9 

17 

13.5 

50 

39.7 

17 

13.5 

15  or  more 

471 

158 

33.5 

136 

28.9 

123 

26.2 

40 

8.5 

Number  of  rust  spots 
per  leaf 

Number 

of 

leaves 

Total  fallen 
July  6 to  Nov.  1 

Left  on  tree 
Nov.  1 

No. 

Percent 

No. 

Percent 

None  

831 

199 

1 

I 24.2 

633 

75.8 

1 to  4 inc 

560 

252 

| 45. 

308 

55. 

5 to  9 inc 

231 

148 

| 64. 

83 

36. 

10  to  14  inc 

126 

104 

82.6 

22 

17.4 

15  or  more 

471 

457 

97.1 

14 

2.9 

Normal  leaf  fall  was  beginning  to  increase  by  the  latter 
part  of  October,  so  that  the  more  important  results  are  to  be 
found  between  the  dates  of  July  6th  and  October  4th,  or  Octo- 
ber 1st  as  given  in  Table  II.  It  may  be  readily  determined 
that  the  number  of  leaves  fallen  on  October  1st  is  closely 
proportional  to  the  number  of  spots  per  leaf.  This  applies 
particularly  to  leaves  having  from  one  to  nine  spots,  where 
the  original  numbers  of  such  leaves  were  large  enough  to  be 
fairly  compared. 

Additional  tables  might  be  given  to  show  the  results  from 
sprayed  and  unsprayed  trees,  but  they  would  indicate  little 
that  is  not  already  shown  in  Table  II.  The  sprayed  trees,  of 
course,  have  fewer  rusted  leaves,  and  comparatively  more 
leaves  with  a small  number  of  spots  per  leaf,  but  the  percent- 


40 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154 J 

age  of  leaf  fall  appears  to  be  fairly  constant  for  leaves  show- 
ing a certain  number  of  rust  spots. 

One  other  condensed  table  may  well  be  included  to  show 
the  effect  of  rust  on  foliage  retention  during  the  season  of 
1914.  This  table,  No.  IV,  includes  records  from  58  trees  and 
about  300  twigs.  The  data  already  given  for  1914  is  included. 


Table  IV. — Leaf  fall  as  affected  by  rust  in  1914. 


No.  trees  included 

18 

18 

23 

9 

Treatment  

..atomic  sulphur 

Bordeaux 

lime-sulphur 

check 

No.  leaves  counted 

4553 

4257 

5493 

2030 

Percent  of  leaves  rusted 

63. 

32.3 

31.2 

86.7 

No  of  spots  per  rusted  leaf 

4.8 

2.5 

2.9 

17.5 

Percent  leaves  fallen  before  Oct. 

4 35.9 

26.7 

22.6 

72.6 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  table  shows  the  total  leaf  fall 
between  July  6th  and  October  4th. 

Turning  now  to  the  fruit  we  would  refer  first  to  Plate  V 
and  Plate  VIII  as  indicating  in  a general  way  the  fact  that  a 
severe  rust  infection  greatly  reduces  the  size  of  the  fruit.  In 
October  1914,  twenty-eight  trees  were  carefully  selected  from 
which  to  secure  data.  The  apples  were  sorted  as  to  grades, 
firsts  being  about  2 y2"  or  over,  and  seconds  about  2"  to  2 y^" ; 
and  as  to  the  number  of  rusted  and  non-rusted  fruits  in  each 
grade.  Tables  V to  VIII  give  the  detailed  results,  according 
to  the  treatment.  The  dropped  fruits  mentioned  in  these 
tables  are  such  as  were  under  the  tree  at  picking  time. 


Table  V. — Number  and  grade  of  fruit  from  eight  check  trees. 


Bushels 

Number 

Percent 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Total  Firsts 
3728 
20.0% 

Total  Seconds 
6059 
32.5% 

Total  Culls 
8835 
47.5% 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Picked  Fbuits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

14% 

1 15%  1 

11 

| 2612 
3754 
| 4020 

25.0 

36.0 

39.0 

1897 

2813 

3050 

72.7 

74.7 
75.9 

715 

941 

970 

27.3 

25.3 
24.1 

Total  picked.... 

41  y2 1 

| 10386  1 

7760 

74.9 

2626 

25.1 

Dropped  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

1116  | 
2305 
4815  | 

1 

13.7 

28.0 

58.3 

730 

1538 

3407 

65.5 

66.8 

70.8 

386 
767 
| 1408 

34.5 

33.3 

29.2 

Total  drops 

8236 

5675 

68.8 

| 2561 

1 

31.2 

1 

Grand  total 

| 

1 

| 18622  1 

1 

13435 

72.2 

5187 

27.8 

Drops,  44.1% 

Average  number  of  apples  per  tree,  2328. 


41 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Apple  Rust 


Table  YI. — Number  and  grade  of  fruit  from  six  trees  sprayed  with 

lime-sulphur. 


Bushels 

Number 

Percent 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Total  Firsts 
6676 
45.3% 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Picked  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

35 

7 

5 

' 4904 
1652 
1944 

57.5 

19.4 

23.2 

1699 

672 

809 

34.5 
40.7 

41.6 

1 • 

| 3205 
1 980  | 

| 1135  1 

1 1 

65.5 
59.3 
I 58.4 

Total  Seconds 
3396 
23.1% 

Culls 

1 

Total  picked.... 

47 

8500 

i 

3180 

37.4 

5320 

62.6 

Dropped  Fruits  | 

Firsts 

1772 
[ 1744 

2712 

28.5 
28.0 

43.5 

632 

704 

1086 

35.7 

40.4 

40.0 

1140 
1040 
1626  | 

64.3 

59.6 

60.0 

Total  Culls 
4656 
31.6% 

Seconds  

Culls  | 

! 

Total  drops ( 

6228 

'I 

| 2422 

38.9 

1 

1 3806 

| 

61.1 

Grand  total 

14728 

5602 

38.1 

9126 

61.9 

Drops,  42.4% 

Average  number  of  apples  per  tree,  2455. 

Table  VII. — Number  and  grade  of  fruit  from  eight  trees  sprayed  with 
Bordeaux  mixture. 


Bushels 

Number 

Percent 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Number 

| Percent 

| Number 

Percent 

Picked  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

39% 

17% 

10% 

6323 

4277 

3805 

44.0 

29.7 

26.3 

3044 

2201 

1924 

48.1 

51.5 

50.7 

3279 

2076 

1881 

51.9 

48.5 

49.3 

1 

Total  picked.... j 67% 

14405 

7169 

49.6 

7236 

50.4 

Dropped  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

1 

2112 

2518 

2921 

27.9  | 
33.4  | 
38.7 

1 

| 1065 
1252 
j 1484 

50.3 

49.5 

50.8 

1047 
1266  | 
1437 

| 49.7 

1 50.5 

49.2 

Total  drops 

7551 

1 

3801 

_l 

50.3 

3750 

49.7 

Grand  total 

21956 

10970 

H 

50.0  1 

1 

“1 

| 10986 

i 

| 50.0 

Total  Firsts 
8435 
38.5% 


Total  Seconds 
6795 
30.9% 


Total  Culls 
6726 
30.6% 


Drops,  34.5  % 


Average  number  of  apples  per  tree,  2744. 


42 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

Table  VIII. — Number  and  grade  of  fruit  from  six  trees  sprayed  with 

atomic  sulphur. 


Bushels 

Number 

Percent 

Rui 

Number 

sted  Healthy 

Percent  ! Number  Percent 

1 - 

Total  Firsts 
5589 
32.7% 

Total  Seconds 
5604 
32.8% 

Total  Culls 
5903 
34.5% 

Picked  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

27% 

17 

10 

4401 

3652 

3657 

37.6 

31.2 

31.2 

2114 

2049 

1952 

47.9 

56.0 

53.3 

2287 

1603 

1705 

52.1 

44.0 

46.7 

Total  picked.... 

54% 

11710 

6115 

52.2 

5595 

47.8 

Dropped  Fruits 

Firsts  

Seconds  

Culls  

1188 

1952 

2246 

22.1 

36.2 

41.7 

58*3 

1001 

1263 

49.0 

51.3 

56.3 

605 

951 

983 

51.0 

48.7 

43.7 

Total  drops 

5386 

2847 

52.8 

2539 

47.2 

Grand  total 

17096 

8962 

52.4 

8134 

47.6 

Drops,  31.5% 

Average  number  of  apples  per  tree,  2849. 


It  will  be  noted  that  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
greater  number  of  rusted  fruits  among  the  drops  than  among 
those  picked.  Evidently  the  rust  infected  fruit  does  not 
show  any  greater  tendency  to  drop  than  the  other  fruit  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  season.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know' 
whether  or  not  the  proportion  is  the  same  for  rusted  fruit 
drops  of  the  early  season,  but  our  records  do  not  cover  this 
point. 

The  differences  in  grade  of  fruit  for  the  various  treat- 
ments are  quite  apparent.  It  must  be  remembered,  however, 
when  we  consider  this  point  that  the  amount  of  leaf  infection 
may  be  a prominent  factor  in  the  size  of  fruit.  We  believe 
that  leaf  infection  is  a far  more  important  factor  than  fruit 
infection  in  determining  fruit  size. 


The  fruit  data  is  given  in  condensed  form  below: 


Table  IX.- 

—Summary  of 

rust  effect 

on  fruit. 

TREATMENT 

Atomic  sulphur 

Bordeaux 

Lime-sulphur 

Check 

No.  fruits  counted 

17096 

21956 

14728 

18622 

Percent 

fruits  rusted 

52.4 

50.0 

42.4 

72.2 

Percent 

picked  firsts 

32.7 

38.5 

45.3 

20.0 

Percent 

picked  seconds 

32.8 

30.9 

23.1 

32.5 

Percent 

picked  culls 

34.5 

30.6 

31.6 

47.5 

No.  of 

trees 

6 

8 

6 

8 

Average 

number  of  fruits 

per 

tree 

2849 

2744 

2455 

2328 

Apple  Rust 


43 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Some  of  the  evident  physiological  effects  of  apple  rust 
infections  are  premature  loss  of  foliage,  under-development  of 
fruit,  and  in  severe  cases  a great  loss  of  vitality  on  the  part 
of  the  tree  as  indicated  by  small  size,  failure  to  develop  fruit 
buds,  etc. 


PHYSIOLOGICAL  EFFECT  OF  RUST  ON 
THE  CEDAR  TREE. 

Some  of  the  effects  of  this  fungus  upon  the  cedar  tree, 
Juniperus  virginiana,  have  been  observed  in  connection  with 
our  work  on  apple  rust,  and  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to 
briefly  mention  them  at  this  time.  The  production  of  cedar 
rust  galls  of  varying  size  and  form  is  too  well  known  to  need 
further  mention.  (Plate  III,  fig.  5.) 

A cedar  tree  which  is  very  heavily  infected  with  rust 
gives  evidence  of  injury  by  less  vigorous  growth.  This  is 
especially  apparent  if  the  tree  has  been  thus  infected  on  two 
or  more  successive  years.  In  particularly  severe  cases  the 
death  of  portions  of  a cedar  tree  may  result. 

The  apparent  immunity  of  certain  cedar  trees  has  been 
frequently  commented  upon,  and  various  theories  have  been 
advanced  to  account  for  this  condition.  In  sections  where 
the  rust  is  destructive,  it  is  quite  common  to  see  cedar  trees 
with  few  or  no  galls,  while  other  trees  within  a few  feet  are 
actually  loaded  down  with  them.  Close  observation  of  these 
“immune”  cedar  trees  has  led  up  to  believe  that  such  im- 
munity as  they  may  possess  is  often  a direct  result  of  previous 
heavy  infections.  Infection  by  Gymnosporangium  Juniperi- 
virginianae  apparently  takes  place  only  in  young  growth.  If 
the  tree  has  been  severely  diseased  with  this  rust  for  two  or 
more  successive  seasons  its  growth  is  greatly  inhibited,  and 
the  opportunity  for  infection  would  be  proportionately  re- 
duced. The  two-year  life  cycle  of  the  fungus  must  be  borne 
in  mind  when  considering  this  possibility,  as  an  infection 
taking  place  in  1913  does  not  become  apparent  until  1914. 

A noticeable  variation  in  rate  and  period  of  growth  has 
also  been  observed  among  cedar  trees  which  were  some  dis- 
tance from  any  apple  orchards.  It  may  be  that  growth  fac- 
tors other  than  those  resulting  from  rust  infection  have  some 
bearing  upon  this  matter.  We  do  not  have  any  exact  records 
to  prove  or  disprove  this  theory,  but  it  is  a matter  worthy  of 
careful  attention. 


44 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  VIII. 

Pig.  1 — Eighteen  typical  apples  from  sprayed  portion  of  York  Im- 
perial tree,  treated  May  6,  at  left.  Same  number  of  typical 
fruits  from  an  unsprayed  York  Imperial  tree,  at  right.  Ex- 
periments conducted  in  1912. 

Fig.  2 — Marketable  fruit  from  sprayed  portion  of  York  Imperial  tree, 
sprayed  May  6,  at  left.  Total  fruit  from  controlled  portion 
of  same  tree,  at  right.  Experiments  conducted  in  1912. 

Fig.  3 — A row  of  roadside  cedars  and  an  apple  tree  in  bloom.  Note 
apple  tree  is  situated  in  row  along  with  cedars. 


Professor  H.  H.  Whetzell  of  Cornell  University  advises 
us  that  he  has  observed  a specific  case  of  this  apparent  im- 
munity in  cedars.  He  has  kindly  granted  up  permission  to 
use  the  following  statement.* 

“During  my  senior  year  in  Wabash  College  I made  some 
studies  of  the  Gymnosporangium  macropus  which  occurs  very 
abundantly  on  cedars  and  apple  trees  about  Crawfordsville, 
Indiana.  I observed  that  certain  cedar  trees  were  very  badly 
infected,  being  loaded  with  galls,  large  and  small,  on  all  their 
twigs  and  branches.  Other  trees  standing  near  were  almost 
or  quite  free  from  any  infection.  A couple  of  years  later  I 
returned  to  Crawfordsville  for  a visit  and  went  out  again  to 
see  the  cedar  trees  from  which  I had,  during  my  senior  year, 
gotten  such  large  quantities  of  galls.  To  my  astonishment 
they  were  practically  free  from  infection,  while  others  nearby 
that  had  borne  no  galls  before  were  now  badly  covered  with 
them.  What  the  explanation  of  this  phenomenon  is  I do  not 
know.  It  occurred  to  me,  however,  that  a serious  infection 
of  the  trees  one  season  might  have  rendered  them  more  or 
less  immune  for  a time  That  the  infection  was  on  different 
trees  in  these  two  years  is  certain,  as  I was  very  familiar  with 
the  different  trees  with  which  I had  worked.” 

CONTROL  OF  RUST  BY  SPRAYING. 

Ever  since  spraying  for  orchard  diseases  became  widely 
adopted  there  have  been  occasional  attempts  to  control  apple 
rust  by  this  method.  The  varying  successes  of  these  trials 
have  been  mentioned  under  historical  notes. 

♦This  statement  is  from  unpublished  records  made  by  Prof.  Whetzell,  in 
connection  with  some  of  his  early  work. 


46  W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154 J 

The  incidents  directly  responsible  for  our  taking  up  ex- 
periments along  this  line  were  a very  severe  outbreak  of  the 
rust  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  state  in  1910,  and  a case  in 
which  a few  trees  were  kept  free  from  it  by  means  of  spray- 
ing. These  controlled  trees  were  part  of  a row  along  one 
side  of  a large  orchard.  The  owner  had  some  atomic  sulphur 
on  hand  and,  incidentally  applied  it  to  these  apple  trees  to 
see  how  effective  it  would  be.  It  was  at  once  assumed  by 
nearly  everyone  in  that  section  that  this  spray  would  control 
rust,  while  others  would  not.  Inquiry  failed  to  locate  any 
other  apple  trees  sprayed  on  the  same  date,  and  a belief  was 
expressed  that  lime-sulphur,  or  Bordeaux  mixture,  would 
control  this  disease  just  as  effectively  as  the  atomic  sulphur,  if 
it  were  applied  at  the  right  time. 

During  the  season  of  1911  the  rust  was  not  very  severe, 
but  no  orchards  were  seen  in  which  spraying  had  effectively 
controlled  it. 

Field  Experiments  in  1912.  In  1912  experiments  were 
undertaken  to  determine  the  possibility  and  the  practicability 
of  controlling  apple  rust  by  the  use  of  spray  materials.  The 
orchard  selected  for  this  work  consisted  of  about  300  York 
Imperial  trees  and  300  of  Ben  Davis  and  other  varieties  com- 
bined. It  was  situated  about  two  miles  northwest  of  Inwood 
and  was  commonly  known  as  the  Tabb  orchard.  The  cedar 
trees  had  been  largely  cleared  away  on  two  sides  of  the  or- 
chard, but  were  fairly  numerous  in  pasture  land  bordering  the 
other  sides.  A nearly  square  block  consisting  of  19  York 
Imperial  and  19  Ben  Davis  trees  was  chosen  near  one  end 
of  the  orchard.  The  trees  were  so  located  that  one  might 
reasonably  expect  them  to  receive  uniform  infection. 

The  only  sprays  applied  to  them  during  the  season  were 
those  used  in  this  work. 

The  materials  tried  were  Bordeaux  mixture  (3  lbs.  copper 
sulphate,  5 lbs.  lime,  50  gallons  water),  commercial  lime- 
sulphur  (1  gal.  to  40  gals,  of  water)  and  atomic  sulphur  (7 
lbs.  to  50  gals,  of  water).  Each  tree  was  divided  into  four 
parts  by  imaginary  vertical  planes.  A two-cylinder  hand 
pump  was  used  in  applying  the  spray  and  a pressure  of  50  to 
75  lbs.  was  maintained.  One  portion  of  the  tree  was  left 
unsprayed  and  each  of  the  other  portions  was  treated  with 
one  of  the  above  three  spray  materials.  A large  rubber  blan- 
ket was  spread  over  as  much  of  the  control  portion  as  it 


Apple  Rust 


47 


[Aug., 


would  cover,  while  the  tree  was  being  sprayed.  A large  tag 
was  placed  on  a branch  near  the  center  of  each  of  the  four 
portions  after  spraying,  and  no  tree  was  sprayed  on  more 
than  one  date. 


Two  trees,  one  Ben  Davis  and  one  York  Imperial,  were 
handled  in  this  manner  on  April  22,  24,  29,  May  4,  6,  8,  10,  13, 
15,  18,  20,  22,  27  aud  29.  Other  trees  were  similarly  treated, 
but  using  only  Bordeaux  and  lime-sulphur,  on  April  18,  20 
and  May  1 : while  still  others  received  only  lime-sulphur  and 
atomic  sulphur  on  April  26  and  May  2. 

Before  the  last  of  May  it  became  evident  that  the  disease 
was  very  largely  controlled  on  certain  trees.  The  sprayed 
portions  of  the  trees  treated  May  4 and  May  6 were  especially 
free  from  rust.  Counts  were  made  early  in  June  to  determine 
the  number  of  diseased  and  the  number  of  healthy  leaves 
resulting  from  each  treatment.  The  results  secured  from 
trees  sprayed  April  26  to  May  10  are  given  below : 


Table  X. — Rust  control  on  apple  foliage  in  1912. 


York  Imperial 

Ben  Davis 

Control 

Bord. 

mixt. 

Lime-  ] 
Sul. 

Atomic 

sul. 

Control 

Bord.  ; 
mix. 

Lime- 

sul. 

Atomic 

sul. 

April  26 

1 

1 1 
1 1 

No.  leaves  counted.... 

17 

50 

52 

43 

29 

35 

Percent  diseased  

60.0 

66.0 

70.0 

34.8  | 

34.4 

42.8 

April  29 

1 

No.  leaves  counted.... 

163 

151 

137 

134  | 

106 

137 

133  | 

121 

Percent  diseased  

58.9 

43.7 

46 

64.1  | 

38.8 

18.9 

30.8  1 

33.0 

May  1 

1 

1 

No.  leaves  counted.. .. 

125  1 

1 140 

139 

135 

139 

1 141 

Percent  diseased  ... 

80.6 

65.7 

51.1 

50.3 

20.0 

27.6 

May  2 

1 

I 

No.  leaves  counted.. .. 

135 

| 160 

110  | 

136 

149 

128 

Percent  diseased  

70.4 

60.6 

| 50.0  1 

| 47.1 

20.8 

22.6 

May  4 

No.  leaves  counted.... 

145 

156 

147 

147  I 

| 130 

185 

121 

158 

Percent  diseased  

86.9 

23.7 

53.0 

35.4  | 

37.7 

8.1 

16.5 

19.6 

May  6 

No.  leaves  counted.. .. 

126 

150 

151 

143 

157 

181 

121 

146 

Percent  diseased  

78.6 

22.6 

23.8 

23.7 

34.3 

3.9 

10.7 

23.9 

May  8 

No.  leaves  counted.... 

138 

160 

145 

154 

175 

127 

142 

138 

Percent  diseased  

63.7 

63.1 

75.8 

42.9 

39.4 

29.9 

37.3 

32.6 

May  10 

1 

No.  leaves  counted.... 

55 

56 

25 

35 

39 

30 

33 

49 

Percent  diseased  

82.0 

71.4 

| 84.0 

1 

80.0 

! 

38.5 

26.6 

42.4 

51.1 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  that  each  of  the  three  spray 
materials  applied  May  6th  was  quite  effective  in  controlling 
the  rust.  Trees  sprayed  May  4th  were  fairly  well  protected, 
while  those  sprayed  May  2nd  showed  no  benefit. 


48 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154]' 

Notes  as  to  the  number  of  rust  spots  per  leaf  show  that 
they  were  greatly  reduced  on  the  sprayed  portions  of  the 
trees  treated  May  4th  and  6th,  but  actual  counts  of  them  were 
not  made. 

The  only  marketable  York  Imperial  apples  in  this  or- 
chard were  secured  from  the  tree  sprayed  May  6th.  Unfor- 
tunately, there  was  little  fruit  on  either  the  Bordeaux  or  con- 
trol portion  of  this  tree. 

It  was  generally  stated  among  the  orchard  men  that  the 
York  Imperial  fruit  was  not  apt  to  be  attacked  to  a very 
great  extent.  Counts  of  600  apples  taken  from  several  un- 
sprayed York  Imperial  trees  showed  an  average  of  85%  of 
the  fruit  rusted,  while  there  were  practically  no  rusted  fruits 
on  the  sprayed  portions  of  the  tree  treated  May  6th.  A com- 
paratively small  number  of  these  fruits  were  deformed  by  the 
disease  and  this  was  what  had  evidently  led  to  the  belief  that 
only  a small  number  were  infected. 

The  results  secured  for  this  season  would  indicate  that 
there  was  a very  limited  period  of  time  when  spraying  for 
control  of  rust  might  be  successfully  undertaken.  It  should 
also  be  noted  that  the  trees  were  in  bloom  from  about  May 
2nd  to  May  5th  of  this  year.  Beach  (1900)  found  that  spray- 
ing in  bloom  caused  a very  pronounced  decrease  in  the  amount 
of  fruit  set.  The  same  thing  may  have  been  true  of  the  trees 
used  in  these  experiments,  but  they  all  carried  a heavy  crop 
of  fruit. 

Field  Experiments  in  1913.  The  Frank  Mish  orchard  and 
George  M.  Bowers’  orchard  at  Inwood  were  selected  for  this 
work.  The  Mish  orchard  consisted  of  about  100  York  Im- 
perial, 100  Ben  Davis  and  200  pear  trees,  while  the  Bowers 
orchard  contained  about  225  York  Imperial  trees.  The  trees 
in  the  Mish  orchard  were  11  years  old  while  those  in  the 
Bowers  orchard  were  12  to  14  years  old.  A great  many  cedars 
had  been  cut  in  the  vicinity  of  these  orchards,  but  enough  re- 
mained to  give  a very  heavy  rust  infection  under  favorable 
conditions. 

The  spray  outfit  used  was  Gould’s  Monarch  hand  pump 
mounted  in  a light  wagon.  The  materials  tested  were  32°  B. 
lime-sulphur,  (1  to  40)  ; Bordeaux  mixture,  (3  lbs.  copper 
sulphate  and  5 lbs  lime  to  50  gals,  water)  ; and  atomic  sul- 
phur, (7  lbs.  to  50  gals,  water). 


Apple  Rust 


49 


[Aug.,  1915] 

The  schedule  of  spray  applications  made  in  these  two 
orchards  is  given  below: 

Table  XI. — Spraying  dates  in  1913  experiments. 


BOWERS  ORCHARD. 


Date  

..4-16 

4-17 

4-18 

4-22 

4-23 

4-24 

4-25 

4-26 

4-28 

4-29 

4-30 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

...  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Atomic  sulphur.. 

...  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Bordeaux  

...  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Date  

..  5-1 

5-2 

5-3 

5-5 

5-6 

5-8' 

5-12 

5-15 

5-19 

5-22 

5-26 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Atomic  sulphur.. 

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Bordeaux  

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

MISH  ORCHARD 

Date  

.4-16 

4-17 

4-18 

4-21 

4-22 

4-23 

4-24 

4-25 

4-29 

4-30 

5-1 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Atomic  sulphur.. 

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Bordeaux  

..  X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Date  

. 5-2 

5-3 

5-5 

5-8 

5-14 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Atomic  sulphur.. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Bordeaux  

X 

X 

X 

Three  trees  were  included  in  the  test  for  each  material, 
on  every  date,  in  the  Bowers  orchard ; and  two  trees  (one 
York  Imperial  and  one  Ben  Davis)  for  each  material  on  every 
date  in  the  Mish  orchard.  There  was  a fair  amount  of  bloom 
in  the  Bowers  orchard  and  scattering  bloom  on  the  Yorks  in 
the  Mish  orchard.  The  Ben  Davis  trees  in  the  latter  orchard 
had  very  fair  bloom,  but  late  frosts  destroyed  practically  all 
of  the  fruit  in  both  orchards.  In  Table  XII  is  given  the  num- 
ber and  distribution  of  rust  spots  on  foliage  in  the  Bowers 
orchards.*  The  twigs  used  in  making  these  counts  were  care- 
fully selected  to  show  average  conditions  and  were  taken 
from  different  sides  of  the  trees. 

*In  some  cases  it  will  be  noted  that  there  are  over  300  rust  spots  per  leaf. 
The  spot  counts  up  to  200  per  leaf  are  believed  to  be  very  accurate,  but  there  is 
probably  an  error  of  5%  in  any  count  which  runs  above  300  spots  per  leaf 


Table  XII. — Number  and  distribution  of  rust  spots  on  York  Imperial  apple  foliage  in  Bowers  orchard  during  1913. 


5i) 


W.  Ya.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


Apple  Rust 


51 


[Aug.,  1915] 


The  general  effectiveness  of  these  sprays  for  controlling 
the  rust  in  the  Bowers  orchard  is  shown  in  Table  XIII.  The 
rust  infection  was  very  unevenly  distributed  through  this 
orchard  as  a result  of  there  being  some  large  cedars  within 
two  or  three  rods  of  it,  along  one  side.  The  first  check  tree 
given  in  this  table  was  quite  near  some  of  these  cedars. 

Table  XIII. — Rust  control  on  York  Imperial  apple  foliage  in  Bowers 
orchard!  during  1913. 


No. 

Date 

Treatment 

Total 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Spots  per 
rusted  leaf 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

128 

5-3 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

100 

42 

42.0 

58 

58.0 

80.5 

132 

5-3 

Bordeaux  

75 

29 

38.7 

46 

61.3 

32.7 

129 

5-3 

Atomic  sulphur.... 

100 

30 

30.0 

70 

70.0 

32.3 

161 

5-8 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

87 

15 

17.3 

72 

82.7 

13.1 

163 

5-8 

Bordeaux  

100 

30 

30.0 

70 

70.0 

9.9 

156 

5-8 

Atomic  sulphur.... 

98 

29 

29.5 

69 

70.5 

16.8 

168 

5-12 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

91 

12 

13.2 

79 

86.8 

5.3 

167 

5-12 

Bordeaux  

111 

28 

25.2 

83 

74.9 

20.3 

171 

5-12 

Atomic  sulphur.... 

109 

21 

19.3 

88 

80.7 

9.1 

176 

5-15 

Lime-sulphur  .... 

98 

16 

16.3 

82 

83.7 

2.2 

181 

5-15 

Bordeaux  

116 

28 

24.1 

88 

75.9 

2.9 

178 

5-15 

Atomic  sulphur.... 

112 

24 

21.4 

88 

78.6 

10.1 

Check  

101 

49 

48.6 

52 

51.4 

127 

Check  

104 

48 

1 

46.2 

56 

53.8 

62 

Our  results  for  the  season  1913  would  indicate  that  one 
spray  application  seven  days  previous  to  the  date  of  infection 
may  be  fairly  effective  in  controlling  apple  rust  on  the  foliage, 
while  an  application  twelve  days  previous  was  not  of  much 
value.  The  lime  sulphur  gave  the  best  control,  and  Bordeaux 
mixture  next. 


The  trees  were  in  bloom  April  23rd  to  April  27th,  1913, 
but  the  late  frosts,  previously  mentioned,  prevented  securing 
any  data  as  to  control  of  rust  on  fruit,  or  effect  on  fruit  pro- 
duction, of  applications  at  blooming  time. 

Field  Experiments  in  1914.  An  orchard  in  Jefferson 
County,  owned  by  Dr.  A.  P.  Thompson,  was  secured  for  our 
work  in  1914.  This  orchard  consisted  of  about  300  York 
Imperial  trees,  thirteen  years  of  age,  situated  along  the  side 
and  top  of  a ridge.  The  trees  were  in  good  condition  although 
they  had  suffered  severely  from  rust  during  some  of  the  past 
seasons.  A large  number  of  cedars  had  been  cut  along  one 
side  of  the  orchard,  but  there  were  still  many  of  them  on  three 
sides,  within  ten  to  forty  rods  of  it.  The  orchard  was  very 
free  from  diseases,  aside  from  apple  rust. 


52 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

The  general  plan  of  the  experiment  may  be  divided  into 
two  parts.  First,  to  apply  each  spray  material  to  a few  pre- 
viously unsprayed  trees  on  each  day,  so  far  as  practicable,  in 
order  to  determine  the  effectiveness  of  one  spray  application 
given  at  any  specified  time  during  the  spring.  The  second 
aim  was  to  learn  whether  several  applications  at  two  weeks, 
one  week,  or  half  week  intervals  would  be  effective  in  con- 
trolling the  rust. 

The  orchard  was  carefully  plotted  and  the  trees  tagged 
and  numbered  consecutively.  The  spray  materials  tested 
were  atomic  sulphur  (7  lbs  to  50  gals.)  ; Bordeaux  mixture 
(3  lbs.  copper  sulphate,  and  5 lbs.  lime  to  50  gals.)  ; and  35°  B. 
home  made  concentrated  lime-sulphur  (1  to  40).  The  sprays 
were  applied  with  a Hardie  Junior  power  outfit,  which  gave 
very  satisfactory  service.  A pressure  of  about  200  pounds 
was  maintained.  The  tank,  hose,  and  rod  were  washed  out 
before  placing  in  the  tank  a spray  material  different  from  the 
one  last  used. 

The  trees  which  were  to  be  sprayed  on  successive  dates 
were  divided  into  six  blocks  and  the  trees  in  each  block  were 
clearly  indicated  by  a white  letter  painted  on  the  trunk  of 
the  trees.  The  spray  to  be  used  on  any  tree  was  indicated 
by  one,  two,  or  three  white  bands  painted  around  the  trunk. 
Having  them  marked  this  way  saved  considerable  time  for  the 
man  who  was  spraying  and  greatly  reduced  the  chance  of  his 
making  a mistake. 

Rainy  weather,  and  unavoidable  difficulties  of  one  kind 
or  another  rendered  it  impossible  to  carry  out  the  full  spray- 
ing schedule  on  the  exact  dates  planned.  The  applications 
on  these  blocks  were  made  as  follows : 

*Table  XIV. — Spray  schedule  for  successive  applications  in  1914. 


No. 

No. 

No. 

Trees 

Trees 

Trees 

Date  Sprayed 

Bord. 

L.  S. 

At.  S. 

Block 

A 

3 

5 

3 

Apr.  28,  May  1,  (L.S.),  2 (Bord.  & At.S.),  4,  7, 

Block 

B 

3 

4 

3 

Apr.  28,  May  1,  (L.S.),  2 (Bord.  & At.S.),  4,  7, 

Block 

C 

Unsprayed  trees  among  sprayed  blocks. 

Block 

D 

3 

4 

3 

May  1,  (L.S.),  2 (Bord.  & At.S.),  4,  7,  11,  14. 

Block 

E 

3 

4 

3 

April  28,  May  4,  11. 

Block 

F 

4 

4 

3 

April  28,  May  4,  11,  18,  25  (Bord.), 

May  26  (L.S.  & At.S.) 

Block 

G 

3 

5 

3 

April  28,  May  4,  11,  18. 

*L.  S.  stands  for  lime-sulphur,  Bord.  for  Bordeaux,  and  At.  S.  for  atomic 
sulphur.  Unless  otherwise  stated,  all  sprays  were  applied.  The  spraying  on  block 
A was  discontinued  after  May  11th,  by  mistake,  so  that  blocks  A and  B are 
duplicates. 

If  further  work  is  conducted  along  this  line  the  spraying 
schedule  might  well  be  planned  so  that  there  would  be  no- 


Apple  Rust 


53 


[Aug.,  1915] 


one  date  when  all  the  blocks  would  be  treated.  It  so  happen- 
ed that  the  only  serious  rust  infection  of  the  1914  season  oc- 
curred May  5th,  and  all  of  the  blocks  had  been  sprayed  on  the 
previous  day.  As  a result,  we  found  no  more  difference  be- 
tween the  blocks  than  would  be  accounted  for  by  ordinary 
variation. 

The  method  used  in  securing  data  from  foliage  will  be 
briefly  outlined.  Tliree  trees  in  each  block  were  selected  for 
check  twig  data.  One  of  these  trees  was  sprayed  with  lime- 
sulphur,  one  with  Bordeaux,  and  one  with  atomic  sulphur ; 
but  just  before  applying  the  spray  four  exposed  twigs  on 
different  sides  of  the  tree  were  tagged  and  covered  with  large 
paper  sacks.  As  soon  as  the  tree  had  been  sprayed  these 
sacks  were  removed.  While  they  received  none  of  the  spray 
directly,  it  was  found  that  they  did  receive  an  appreciable 
amount  due  to  the  bending  down  of  branches  higher  up,  com- 
bined with  the  action  of  the  rain  and  wind.  The  amount  of 
protection  which  such  twigs  secured  in  that  way  will  be  in- 
dicated in  the  next  table.  These  four  twigs  were  covered 
each  time  that  the  tree  was  sprayed.  Four  other  twigs,  com- 
parable in  size  and  exposure,  were  chosen  on  the  same  trees 
to  give  data  as  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  spray.  On  all  other 
sprayed  trees  four  sprayed  twigs  on  four  sides  of  the  tree 
were  selected  for  counting.  The  twigs  on  a tree  were  num- 
bered from  1 to  4 or  from  1 to  8,  according  to  whether  or  not 
there  were  any  check  twigs  on  it.  On  all  check  trees  four 
twigs  were  taken,  under  similar  conditions  as  regards  size  and 
exposure.  A separate  note  book  page  was  used  for  the  data 
from  each  twig.  The  leaves  on  a twig  were  not  counted  as  a 
whole,  but  the  number  from  each  bud  was  put  down  sepa- 
rately. This  method  was  found  very  accurate  and  required 
little  more  time  than  the  other.  The  number  of  spots  was 
actually  counted  on  each  rusted  leaf  for  at  least  the  terminal 
growth  of  each  of  the  eight  twigs  on  trees  which  had  check 
twigs,  as  shown  on  page  50.  Similar  spot  counts  were  made 
on  four  twigs  on  each  of  ten  check  trees.  The  first  two  leaves 
to  unfold,  sometimes  called  the  bud  leaves,  were  removed 
before  the  first  count  was  made. 

As  previously  stated,  these  blocks  show  practically  no 
difference  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  treatments  as  regards 
dates  of  application.  It  has  therefore  seemed  advisable  to 
omit  the  lengthy  tabulations  which  would  be  required  to 
show  this,  and  to  present  the  data  from  the  standpoint  of 
materials  only.  Table  XV  gives  the  number  and  distribution 
of  rust  spots  on  the  foliage  of  four  trees,  selected  to  give  as 
nearly  typical  and  comparable  results  as  seem  possible. 


Table  XV. — Number  and  distribution  of  rust  spots  on  York  Imperial  apple  foliage  in  Dr.  A.  P.  Thompson's  orchards  during  191 4 


05 

CO 


K 


P 


E-i 


fa 


o 

o 

p 

PQ 


X 

P 

C 

H 

Q 

K 

o 

m 


03 

o 

E-i 

0 

H 

« 

CM 

03 


03 

o 

$ 

EH 

Q 

H 

<C 

DC 

Ph 


00 

00 

© 

rHNCOrHOOOO 

CD 

rH 

N 

OONOCDNOO  HH 

tH 

in 

H 

OOOOOOH  O 

rH 

00 

rH 

NOCOINOHOO 

1 ^ 

CO 

rH 

CD 

rH  CO  O N 

<N 

05 

° 

OCOONCOOOON 

1-1 

tH 

O 

m 

OHCOOHOOCHNIO 

rH 

CO 

rH  tH 

00 

05 

rH  rH  05  rH  rH  O O 

<N 

r> 

© 

!> 

t^OOH^OOOO^O 

1-1 

co 

rH 

CO 

in 

iO 

in  CD  00  rH  O 

rH 

in 

05 

t- 

COOSCDrHOO^COOO 

CD 

rH  rH  rH 

rH 

CD 

<N 

hhcdhoo 

rH 

CO 

o 

o o o o 

IN 

05 

rH 

OOinrHOCOOOOH 

00 

rH  rH  rH 

rH 

in 

o 

o o o o o 

00 

b- 

05 

OO'fNNHO 

t- 

00 

t- 

rHot-iNiniNinin 

N 

CD 

t- 

00 

O rH  CO  CO  CD  O O 

rH 

in 

CO 

o 

ONOCOrHlNOOOOOlNO 

IN 

rH 

tH 

00 

ONint-OOOOOCDOO 

rH 

CO 

1-1 

CO 

00 

t> 

NININrHt-OOO 

<N 

00 

rH 

OtHCD(N(NC0OO 

<N 

rH 

rH 

IN 

CD 

OCDDIOCOHOOOCDCDO 

1-1 

rH 

rH 

00 

l> 

00 

C0  05  00  t-  CD  O O 

N 

r> 

1 

rH  rH  00  CO  O O O 

N 

CD 

in 

00 

in  05  rH  IN  rH 

. 00  1 

NHINN 

in 

00 

00  I 

rH  t-  rH  N O O rH  H 

in 

00  rH 

rH 

° 

l> 

OOOOCOINinOOOOH 

rJH 

rH  rH 

CO 

rH 

o 

(NrHin-^OOOrHOOrHin 

i"H 

rH 

rH  IN  rH  rH  CO 

<N 

00 

CO 

ooOosooooooo 

in 

rH  rH 

rH 

05  ! 

os’  I 

NCDMt-OOHOO 

rH 

rHrHH 

w 

rH(NCO^lOCDI>OOOiOTH(NCO 

0) 

w 

CD 

O I 

a 

H H H H 

0600600006  o’ oo 

X2 

a 

■*-> 

£££££££££££££ 

a 

a> 

ca 

£ 

£££££££££££££ 

£ 

f-i 

O 

O 

£ 

6 

6 

m 

Z \ 

z \ 

sjods  }snj  jo  uotjnqijjsiQ 

Total  number  leaves....  65  Total  number  leaves....  74  Total  number  leaves  ...  55  Total  number  leaves....  57 

Total  rusted  leaves 45  Total  rusted  leaves 44  Total  rusted  leaves 31  Total  rusted  leaves 26 

Percent  rusted  leaves..  69.0  Percent  rusted  leaves..  59.0  Percent  rusted  leaves..  56.5  Percent  rusted  leaves..  45.5 

Total  rust  spots 449  Total  rust  spots 194  j Total  rust  spots 241  Total  rust  spots 85 

Spots  per  rusted  leaf....  10  Spots  per  rusted  leaf..  4.4  Spots  per  rusted  leaf..  8 Spots  per  rusted  leaf..  3.2 


Tree  Number  369 
Check 

00 

CD 

05 

N 

IN  © 00  00  © IN 
05  CO  in  rH  rH 

56 

43 

77 

1421 

33 

in 

o 

CO 

© N Th  (N  Th  r-l  (N 
© 00  © h-  Th  Th 

CD 

in 

00 

CD 

in  © Th  in  © 

© Th  IN 

Total  number  leaves... 

Total  rusted  leaves 

Percent  rusted  leaves. 

Total  rust  spots 

Spots  per  rusted  leaf... 

iO 

05 

146 

' 

iHC0f-O0in©©©N 

Th  © © IN 

■'t1 

00 

157 

M-CMKrlrjlOO 
(N  Th  © <N  (N 

00 

00 

198 

00t-inTh©rH©© 

^ Th  m n in 

in 

L- 

00 

t>-  CD  CO  r- 1 
HlOH 

05 

th  j 05  co  in  ^ o © © © © 
Th  Th  in  © 

Tree  Number  251 
Check 

00 

CD 

© 

© 

© in  © © © © 

© © rH  rH 

00 

© rH  IN  © 05 

in  Th  © © IN 

t>- 

00 

N 

Th 

t-rH©Thrh©©© 

in  in  © in 

CD 

CD 

(M 

t-  © © CO 

Th  Th  © 

Total  number  leaves.. . 

Total  rusted  leaves 

Percent  rusted  leaves. 

Total  rust  spots 

Spots  per  rusted  leaf... 

in 

lO 

1371 

00  © t-  © © 
COHN 

Th 

CD 

1200 

© rH  © © © © 
© © Th  CO 

CO 

00 

224 

t-t>CDt-©t-©© 
rH  © in  Th  © rH 

IN 

CO 

l135l 

© Th  rH  © IN  IN 
IN  Th  <N  IN  IN 

t> 

132 

© © © © Th  rH  © 
N (N  © © rH 

Tree  Number.  370 

Treatment,  Lime -sulphur.  Block  D. 

SPRAYED  TWIGS 

00 

© © © rH  © © © 

Total  number  leaves..  49 
Total  rusted  leaves....  12 
Percent  rusted  leaves  24.5 

Total  rust  spots 67 

Spots  per  rusted  leaf..  5.5 

CD 

1-1 

© © © rH  © © 

CD 

in 

1-1 

© rH  © © © 

LO 

CO 

CO 

ONH 

00 

© 

©©©O©©©© 

CO 

10 

Th 

HOHOOINOOOO 

(N 

CD 

lox 

1 

CDNHOOH 

1-1 

- 

t-  IN  N © 

1 

CHECK  TWIGS 

00 

in 

157 

in  t-  © © in 
CD  CD  N 

Total  number  leaves..  49 

Total  rusted  leaves 40 

Percent  rusted  leaves  81.6 

Total  rust  spots 1047 

Spots  per  rusted  leaf..  20 

t> 

05 

252 

ThCDrHCD©©©©(N 
© 05  © Th  rH 

CD 

in 

1 109  J 

© © © (N  rH 
in  IN  M 

in 

!mi 

rH  in  © © IN  rH  O 

Th 

in 

i © 
CO 

Th  IN  © © O 
© © rH 

CO 

in 

(N 

IN 

Th  © in  (N  © 

Th  © © rH 

IN 

CO 

L- 

O 00  t-  in  Th  © 

© IN 

1-1 

t- 

© 

© CD  © t-  IN  © © 

Spur  number  .... 

No.  of  leaves.. 

1 

No.  of  rust  spots 

rH  IN  © Th  in  © t-  00  C5  © 
t-H 



OOOOOOOOOO 

££££££££££ 

c^c3c3c$cdcdo3c3cdc3 

sjods 

}snj  jo  uoijnqujsia 

56 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


Table  XVI  shows  the  total  results  for  each  spray  ma- 
terial used  on  the  trees  which  were  sprayed  on  successive 
dates. 

Table  XVI. — Summary  of  rust  control  on  York  Imperial  apple  foliage 
sprayed  on  successive  dates. 

Leaves  on  Sprayed  Twigs 


Number 
of  trees 

Spray 

Total 

leaves 

Ru: 

sted 

Hea 

lthy 

Number 

1 Percent 

Number 

Percent 

23 

Lime-sulphur  

5493 

1780 

32.4 

3713 

67.6 

18 

Bordeaux  

4257 

1401 

33.0 

2856 

67.0 

18 

Atomic  sulphur  

4543 

2856 

62.9 

1687 

37.1 

Check  Twigs 


6 

Lime-sulphur  

1450 

1121 

77.4 

329 

22.6 

6 

Bordeaux  

1384 

845 

61.0 

539 

39.0 

6 

Atomic  sulphur  

1580 

1286 

81.4 

294 

18.6 

Unsprayed  

2030 

1837 

90.5 

193 

9.5 

These  results,  secured  from  a number  of  trees  and  in- 
cluding 1300  to  5000  leaves  for  each  treatment  should  give  a 
very  fair  average.  The  lime-sulphur  is  evidently  best,  with 
Bordeaux  a close  second.  The  general  effect  of  the  spray  on  the 
check  twigs  of  sprayed  trees  may  also  be  noted.  The  average 
of  rusted  leaves  on  check  trees  was  over  90%  while  on  the 
check  twigs  of  sprayed  trees  it  falls  as  low  as  61%  in  the  case 
of  Bordeaux  mixture. 

There  was  a heavy  crop  of  apples  on  nearly  every  tree 
in  this  orchard.  Data  regarding  the  control  of  rust  on  fruit 
was  therefore  secured  from  a number  of  trees.  The  figures  in 
Table  XVII  include  both  drops  and  picked  fruit.  By  the 
term  '‘drops”  we  mean,  in  this  case,  such  fruits  as  were  on 
the  ground  under  the  trees  at  picking  time. 

Table  XVII. — Summary  of  rust  control  on  York  Imperial  apple  fruits 
sprayed  on  successive  dates. 


Treatment 

Total 

fruits 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Number 
of  trees 

Average 
number 
iruits 
per  tree 

Number 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

Check  

18622 

| 13435 

72.2 

5187 

27.8 

8 

2328 

Lime-sulphur  

14728 

5602 

38.1 

9128 

61.9 

6 

2455 

Bordeaux  

21956 

10970 

50.0 

10986 

50.0 

8 

2744 

Atomic  sulphur  

17096 

8962 

52.4 

8134 

47.6 

6 

2849 

Apple  Rust 


57 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Each  of  the  spray  materials  gave  a very  pronounced 
reduction  in  the  percent  of  rusted  fruit,  but  the  lime-sulphur 
shows  up  particularly  well. 

Turning  from  the  trees  which  received  several  successive 
applications  of  spray,  we  will  take  up  those  which  were 
sprayed  but  once.  The  dates  and  materials  used  in  this  part 
of  the  work  are  indicated  below. 


Table  XVIII. — 8 pray  schedule  for  single  ap- 
plication in  1914. 


Date 

Nun 

iber  of  trees  sprayed 

Bordeaux 

Lime-sulphur  1 

Atomic  sulphur 

April  28  

3 

3 

3 

April  29  

3 

May  1 

3 

May  2 

3 

1 

May  4 

3 

3 

3 

May  5 

7 

2 

May  6 

3 

7 

7 

May  7 

3 

3 

3 

May  8 

3 

May  9 

3 

3 

May  11  

1 

1 

1 

May  12  

3 

3 

3 

May  13  

3 

3 

May  14  

3 

3 

May  15  

3 

3 

May  18  

3 

3 

May  19  

3 

May  20  

3 

3 

May  21  

3 

3 

May  22  

3 

3 

May  23  

3 

May  25  

3 

3 

May  26  

2 

2 

May  28  

2 

2 

58 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

Check  twigs  were  retained  on  each  of  the  trees  used. 
Since  there  was  no  important  rust  infection  after  May  5th, 
counts  were  made  only  on  trees  sprayed  previous  to  that  date. 
Table  XIX  shows  the  effectiveness  of  the  treatments. 


Table  XIX. — Rust  control  on  York  Imperial  apple  foliage  as  a result 
of  single  spray  applications  in  191Jf. 

Leaves  on  Sprayed  Twigs 


Tree 

number 

Date 

Spray 

Total  1 
number  i 

Rusted 

Healthy 

Number  j 

Percent 

Number 

Percent 

43 

April  28' 

Lime-sulphur  

215 

183 

85.0 

34 

15.0 

44 

April  28 

Atomic  sulphur  

306 

229 

75.0 

77 

25.0 

45 

April  28 

Bordeaux  

251 

151 

60.0 

100 

40.0 

242 

April  29 

Lime-sulphur  

273 

156 

27.0 

118 

43.0 

204 

May  1 

Lime-sulphur  

289 

174 

60.0 

115 

40.0 

191 

May  1 

Bordeaux  

260 

144 

55.4 

106 

44.6 

219 

May  1 

Atomic  sulphur  

232 

166 

71.0 

66 

29.0 

249 

May  2 

Lime-sulphur  

312 

145 

46.5 

167 

53.5 

221 

May  2 

Bordeaux  

222 

93 

42.0 

132 

58.0 

4 

May  4 

Lime-sulphur  

334 

88 

26.5 

246 

73.5 

5 

May  4 

Atomic  sulphur  

279 

132 

48.0 

147 

52.0 

7 

May  4 

Bordeaux  

348 

63 

18.0 

285 

82.0 

Leaves  on  Checked  Twigs 


42 

Check  

186 

161 

87.0 

25 

13.0 

43 

April  28 

Lime-sulphur  

201 

147 

73.0 

54 

27.0 

44 

April  28 

Atomic  sulphur  

227 

174 

76.5 

53 

23.5 

45 

April  28' 

Bordeaux  

325 

215 

66.0 

110 

34.0 

242 

April  29 

Lime-sulphur  

230 

185 

81.0 

45 

19.0 

204 

May  1 

Lime-sulphur  

230 

202 

88.0 

28 

12.0 

191 

May  1 

Bordeaux  

261 

220 

84.1 

41 

15.8 

219 

May  1 

Atomic  sulphur  

194 

163 

84.0 

31 

16.0 

249 

May  2 

Lime-sulphur  

147 

127 

86.4 

20 

13.6 

221 

May  2 

Bordeaux  

168 

126 

75.0 

42 

25.0 

4 

May  4 

Lime-sulphur  

247 

176 

72.0 

71 

28.0 

5 

May  4 

Atomic  sulphur  

247 

151 

62.0 

96 

38.0 

7 

May  4 

Bordeaux  

293 

147 

50.0 

146 

50.0 

223 

Check  

162 

153 

95.0 

9 

5.0 

The  results  of  these  trials  would  indicate  that  a spray 
application  one  week  previous  to  infection  is  ineffective  for 
control  of  rust,  while  the  same  material  applied  one  day 
previously  is  very  effective  and  applied  three  days  previously 
is  fairly  effective. 

The  data  for  1912  indicated  practically  the  same  thing. 
The  date  of  infection  in  1914  was  almost  the  same  as  in  1912 
and  the  date  of  blooming  for  the  trees  in  1912  was  about 
May  2-5,  while  in  1914  it  was  May  1-5.  The  blossom  buds 
were  just  showing  good  color  on  April  27th,  and  the  so-called 
cluster  bud  spray  was  being  applied  at  that  time  in  a nearby^ 
orchard.  A large  portion  of  the  central  blossom  buds  opened 


Apple  Rust 


59 


[Aug.,  1915] 


on  May  1st.  May  4th,  practically  every  blossom  had  opened 
and  during  that  day  a very  few  petals  fell  from  the  earlier 
blossoms.  It  was  impossible  to  spray  until  about  noon,  on 
May  5th,  and  applications  made  at  that  time  showed  no  con- 
trol of  rust.  The  only  time  when  spray  could  have  been 
effectively  applied  for  the  control  of  apple  rust  in  1914  was 
when  the  trees  were  in  bloom. 


The  conclusion  which  we  would  draw  from  these  spray- 
ing experiments  is  that  the  disease  is  readily  controlled  by 
the  common  spray  mixtures  such  as  lime-sulphur,  Bordeaux 
mixture,  and  atomic  sulphur ; that  lime-sulphur  is  most  effi- 
cent ; and  that  a successful  spray  schedule  for  rust  control 
must  take  into  account  the  rate  of  growth  of  the  young  leaves. 
We  do  not  believe  that  the  apple  rust  disease  can  be  con- 
sistently and  regularly  controlled  by  the  use  of  less  than  six 
or  seven  applications  during  the  spring.  Such  a spraying 
schedule  would  be  about  as  follows: 

First  Application — When  blossom  buds  are  showing  good 
color.  (Arsenate  might  be  included.) 

Second  Application — Within  one  or  two  days  after  first 
blossoms  open.  (No  arsenicals.) 

Third  Application — As  soon  as  ^4  to  2/z  of  bloom  has 
dropped.  (No  arsenicals.) 

Fourth  Application — 3 to  4 days  after  third.  (Include 
arsenate.) 

Fifth  Application — 5 to  6 days  after  fourth.  (No  arse- 
nicals.) 

Sixth  Application — 5 to  6 days  after  fifth.  (No  arsenicals.) 

Seventh  Application — 6 to  7 days  after  sixth.  (No  arse- 
nicals.) 


The  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  are  believed  to 
be  the  most  important.  The  spraying  must,  of  course,  be 
thoroughly  done,  and  the  impracticability  of  carrying  out 
such  a spray  schedule  in  a large  orchard  is  self  evident. 

A glance  at  the  last  column  in  Table  XVII  will  show 
that  there  were  more  fruits  matured  upon  the  trees  sprayed 
May  4th,  in  full  bloom,  than  upon  the  check  trees.  Many 
young  fruits  may  have  been  killed,  but  the  trees  still  needed 
thinning.  From  our  experiments  thus  far,  we  would  not 
hesitate  to  recommend  that  York  Imperial  apple  trees,  show- 
ing a good  amount  of  bloom,  should  receive  one  spray  appli- 


60 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


PLATE  IX. 

Fig.  1 — Cedar  trees  scattered  in  with  other  growth  at  Falling  Waters, 
W.  Va. 

Fig.  2 — Instrument  shelter  for  hygrothermograph,  showing  exposure. 
Fig.  3 — Cedar  trees  in  pasture  field  near  Inwood,  W.  Va. 


cation  of  lime-sulphur  without  arsenical  poison  while  they 
are  in  bloom,  provided  the  apple  rust  is  prevalent  and  de- 
structive in  that  section. 

So  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  learn,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  lime-sulphur  spray  would  be  injurious  to  bees  visit- 
ing the  blossoms  after  this  spray  has  been  applied. 

DESTRUCTION  OF  RED  CEDARS  AS  A 
METHOD  OF  CONTROL. 

The  destruction  of  the  red  cedar  has  been  quite  univer- 
sally recommended  as  the  best  and  most  practical  method  of 
controlling  apple  rust.  Although  this  method  of  control  is 
so  generally  accepted  we  find  only  one  reference  to  a careful 
experiment  for  determining  its  efficiency.  Jones  (1893,  p.  83) 
as  quoted  on  page  6,  secured  some  definite  evidence  regard- 
ing this  point. 

Reed  (1914,  p.  23)  gives  reports  from  orchard  men  as  to 
the  effectiveness  of  cutting  out  cedars,  but  details  as  to  dis- 
tances, area,  etc.  are  not  mentioned. 

The  value  of  the  cedars  must  be  taken  into  consideration 
when  dealing  with  a problem  of  this  kind.  The  red  cedar, 
Junipems  virginiancic  is  of  very  little  commercial  importance 
in  W est  Virginia.  It  occurs  quite  commonly  throughout  the 
state  and  is  abundant  in  some  of  the  principal  apple  growing 
sections.  Most  of  the  growth  is  of  no  value  because  of  its 
inferior,  bushy  development.  There  are  many  fields  which 


62  W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

should  be  cleared  of  these  scrub  cedars  because  of  the  in- 
creased pasture  value  which  would  result.  (Plate  IX,  fig.  3.) 
The  larger  trees  find  use  as  fence  posts  and  telephone  poles, 
but  comparatively  few  are  valuable  for  sawed  lumber,  and  it 
is  said  that  only  the  red,  heart  wood  is  good  for  fence  posts. 
The  sentimental  value  which  may  be  attached  to  cedars  is 
often  a factor  of  great  importance,  and  is  far  more  difficult  to 
deal  with  than  a mere  commercial  value.  There  are  very  few 
places  where  the  value  of  an  orchard  would  not  greatly  out- 
weigh the  value  of  all  the  red  cedar  trees  to  be  found  within 
such  range  that  they  would  be  likely  to  produce  serious  rust 
infection. 

The  very  destructive  apple  rust  infection  of  1912  brought 
this  disease  to  a conspicuous  place  in  the  list  of  apple  enemies, 
and  during  the  year  1913  the  State  Crop  Pest  Commission 
took  action  in  regard  to  the  destruction  of  red  cedars  in  cer- 
tain sections  of  West  Virginia.  The  state  law,  governing- 
such  matters,  granted  this  commission  authority  to  make  the 
necessary  rules  and  regulations  likely  to  be  required  for  any 
case  of  this  kind.*  Rules  relative  to  the  destruction  of  red 
cedars,  harboring  this  disease,  were  issued  in  February,  1913, 
and  the  agents  of  the  commission  began  active  work  in 
November,  1913. 

Of  course  every  reasonable  effort  was  used  to  have  the 
cedars  removed  without  a direct  application  of  the  processes 
of  law.  Difficulties  were  met  with  and  overcome,  and  much 
valuable  work  has  been  accomplished  along  this  line.1" 

The  cost  of  cutting  out  cedars  is  often  given  as  an  argu- 
ment against  the  general  application  of  this  method.  Mr.  S. 
L.  Dodd,  Jrff  has  secured  some  valuable  data  for  us  along 
this  line,  showing  the  actual  cost  of  such  work.  This  cedar 
destruction  was  carried  on  in  Berkeley  County,  West  Virginia. 
The  facts  are  given  in  some  detail,  since  it  is  essential  to  know 
the  conditions  under  which  the  work  was  done.  Mr.  Dodd’s 
report  is  as  follows: 

“The  first  locality  where  much  work  was  done  is  at 
Tablers  Station  on  the  lands  adjoining  the  orchards 


♦Copies  of  the  state  law,  and  the  special  rules  of  the  State  Crop  Pest  Com- 
mission may  be  secured  from  the  State  Entomologist,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 

f Further  details  in  regard  to  this  work  are  given  by  W.  E.  Rumsey  in  the 
First  Biennial  Report  of  the  State  Crop  Pest  Commission. 

JS.  L.  Dodd,  Jr.  is  the  State  Crop  Pest  Commission  inspector  for  Berkeley 
County.  He  is  well  acquainted  with  conditions  in  that  section,  and  has  had 
personal  charge  of  much  of  the  cutting  out  work. 


Apple  Rust 


63 


[Aug.,  1915] 

of  C.  C.  Borum,  J.  W.  Stewart,  and  Lord  & Harrison.  At 
this  point  approximately  350  acres  have  been  cleared  of  cedars 
and  there  remain  about  225  acres  to  clear  yet.  Of  the  350 
acres  cleared,  about  100  acres  were  in  wood  lot  where  the 
cedars  were  overrun  with  grape  vines,  and  the  underbrush 
was  heavy,  thus  making  the  cutting  more  expensive  and 
much  harder.  The  other  250  acres  were  cleared  much  cheaper 
as  the  trees  were  for  the  most  part  located  in  fence  rows  and 
on  rock  breaks  in  the  fields.  These  cedars  were  nearly  all 
from  15  to  25  feet  in  height  although  there  may  have  been 
20%  which  were  smaller  (from  two  to  ten  feet).  In  the  wood 
lot  the  trees  were  very  thick,  while  in  the  fence  rows  they 
were  more  scattered.  On  250  acres  of  this  land  nine  men  were 
employed  two  days,  seven  of  them  receiving  $1.00  and  the 
other  two  who  were  inspectors,  $3.00  per  day.  Eleven  men 
were  employed  two  days  clearing  another  fifty  acres.  Eight  of 
these  men  were  paid  at  the  rate  of  $1.00  per  day,  two  at  $3.00 
and  one  at  $2.00.  Twenty-five  more  acres  required  ten  men  for 
two  days,  seven  men  at  $1.00  per  day,  two  at  $3.00  and  one 
at  $2.00 ; while  on  the  remaining  twenty-five  acres  two  were 
employed  eight  days,  one  at  $3.00  and  one  at  $2.00  per  day. 
This  makes  a total  of  $128.00  for  the  350  acres.  On  the  250 
acres  in  fence  rows  and  breaks  the  cedars  were  trimmed  up 
and  the  brush  piled  ready  to  be  burned. 

“The  second  place  which  should  be  mentioned  is  at 
Darkesville  on  lands  adjoining  the  McDonald  orchard.  There 
was  some  cutting  done  in  this  locality  by  the  property  owners, 
but  the  cost  is  not  obtainable,  and  that  area  is  not  included. 
There  were  200  acres  in  the  place  where  we  did  the  cutting 
and  the  cedars  were  scattered  over  the  whole  of  it,  in  fence 
rows  and  on  rock  breaks.  In  this  case  the  trees  were  trimmed 
up  and  the  brush  piled  and  I think  burned.  These  trees  were 
mostly  very  large,  being  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  feet  in 
height.  A few  along  the  fence  row  in  one  field  were  very 
small.  Six  men  were  employed  six  days ; four  of  them  re- 
ceiving $1.25,  and  the  other  two  $3.00  per  day.  This  makes 
a total  of  $66.00  to  clean  up  the  200  acres. 

“The  third  place  where  extensive  cutting  was  done  is 
around  the  Cherry  Hill  Orchard  Company’s  place  in  Falling 
Waters  District.  We  have  cut  the  cedars  on  about  200  acres 
but  there  are  still  about  600  acres  which  should  be  cleared. 
On  100  acres  of  the  land  cut  over  last  year  the  cedars  were 
small,  being  from  two  to  six  feet  in  height,  and  were  scatter- 
ed over  large  open  fields.  On  the  other  100  acres  the  trees 


64 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  1541 


PLATE  X. 

Meteorological  instruments,  showing  equipment  and  exposure. 


were  larger,  being  from  15  to  20  feet  in  height,  and  about 
half  of  them  were  in  a wood  lot  while  the  rest  were  in  fields 
and  around  fence  rows. 

“On  the  first  100  acres  two  men  were  employed  six  days,, 
one  at  three  and  the  other  at  two  dollars.  On  the  last  100 
acres  two  men  were  employed  five  days  at  the  same  rate  of 
pay  as  before.  In  this  case  we  trimmed  up  the  trees  and  left 
them  in  poles.  We  began  cutting  again  at  this  place  a few 
days  ago  and  about  5 acres  were  cleared  by  one  man  in  one 
day,  at  $3.00  per  day.  A total  of  $58.00  has  been  spent  in 
cutting  out  the  cedars  from  205  acres  at  this  place. 

“The  next  locality  where  work  was  done  is  in  Falling 
Waters  District  around  the  orchards  of  Mr.  George  Ryneal,  Jr. 
The  cedar  trees  here  were  all  large,  running  from  twenty  to 
thirty  feet  in  height.  Most  of  them  were  located  on  the  river 
cliff,  and  in  with  other  timber.  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
ground  is  quite  high  at  this  point  the  spores  from  these  trees 
would  blow  over  a very  large  area,  making  it  particularly  im- 
portant to  have  them  removed.  Twenty-five  acres  of  this 
land  had  the  cedars  scattered  along  fence  rows  and  on  rock 
breaks.  More  than  half  of  the  trees  have  been  cut  by  the 
owner  without  any  help  from  the  state  whatsoever.  This  man 
also  helped  when  we  were  cutting  in  that  neighborhood. 
There  have  been  about  65  acres  cleared  of  cedars  at  this  point. 
On  the  first  25  acres  four  men  were  employed  ten  days  and 
were  paid  $1.25  per  day.  On  the  remaining  40  acres  five  men 
were  used  for  six  days,  four  at  $1.25,  and  one  at  $2.00,  making 
a total  of  $92.00. 


66 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

“At  Ridgeway  we  did  some  cutting  around  the  Clohan 
orchards  which  are  about  a mile  from  the  station.  On  one 
farm  we  cleared  out  a thicket  composed  almost  entirely  of 
cedars.  These  trees  were  very  tall  and  straight  and  in  order 
to  get  them  cut  we  had  to  trim  them  into  poles  and  pile  the 
brush.  This  thicket  stood  about  three-fourths  of  a mile  from 
the  Clohan  orchard  and  was  on  the  western  side  on  high 
ground.  As  the  winds  come  mostly  from  this  direction  it  was 
very  important  to  remove  the  cedars. 

“There  are  about  seven  or  eight  acres  in  the  clearing  and 
it  took  four  men,  ten  days  to  complete  the  job.  One  of  these 
men  received  $3.00,  another  $2.00  and  the  other  two  men 
$1.25  each  per  day.  This  makes  a total  of  $75.00  to  finish  the 
work  at  that  place. 

“The  cedars  were  also  destroyed  on  about  100  acres  close 
around  this  orchard.  The  trees  here  were  from  fifteen  to 
twenty  feet  in  height  and  located  along  the  fences.  On  this 
there  were  five  men  employed  for  three  days.  Three  received 
$1.25,  one  $2.00  and  one  $3.00  per  day,  which  makes  a total  of 
$26.25  in  all.  In  this  case  we  again  trimmed  up  the  trees 
and  piled  the  brush. 

“The  cedars  were  also  cleared  from  15  acres  of  wood  lot. 
The  trees  were  10  to  15  feet  tall  and  the  largest  of  them  were 
trimmed  up  for  posts.  Six  men  were  employed  for  one  day. 
Four  of  them  received  $1.25  each,  one  $2.00  and  the  other 
$3.00  per  day,  making  a total  of  $10.00. 

“At  Parks  Gap  on  Dry  Run  Pike,  around  the  orchards  of 
J.  H.  Fishell,  S.  S.  Felker  and  the  Sperows,  about  150  acres 
were  cleared.  On  twenty-five  acres  of  this  the  trees  were 
small  and  in  the  open  field  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain.  The 
cedars  on  the  remaining  125  acres  were  larger  and  were  on 
the  mountain,  making  it  very  hard  to  cut  them.  One  man  at 
$2.00  per  day  was  employed  for  six  days  to  cut  the  twenty- 
five  acres.  On  the  other  125  acres  four  men  were  employed 
five  days.  Two  of  them  were  paid  $1.25  each,  one  $3.00  and 
one  $2.00  per  day.  The  last  trees  were  trimmed  up  and  left 
in  poles.  They  were  mostly  about  fifteen  to  twenty  feet  in 
height.  The  total  cost  in  this  case  was  $49.50. 

“The  Pittsburgh  Orchards  Co.  of  Hedgesville  report 
cutting  the  cedars  from  21.2  acres  at  a cost  of  $19.93.  The 
trees  were  mostly  fifteen  to  twenty  feet  tall  and  varied  from 


Apple  Rust 


67 


[Aug.,  1915] 

sparse  to  thickly  clustered  clumps  with  many  grape  vines 
among  them.  The  time  required  to  do  this  work  was  152^4 
hours  and  the  average  rate  of  pay  per  hour  was  13c.  They 
say,  Tn  our  experience  the  cutting  of  cedars  is  inexpensive 
and  rapid  work,  and  were  the  cost  increased  an  hundredfold, 
it  would  be  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  benefit  es- 
tablished.’ 

“This  data  is  as  near  accurate  as  I am  able  to  get  it,  and 
hope  that  it  will  serve  your  purpose.  You  will  understand 
that  this  is  the  cost  of  cutting  only,  and  not  the  cost  of  mark- 
ing and  the  numerous  trips  in  order  to  get  the  owners  con- 
sent to  do  the  cutting. 

“There  are  other  places  where  cutting  has  been  done, 
but  I have  no  information  as  to  the  cost.  There  are  also  a 
great  many  places  where  ive  cut  a day  or  so,  but  the  work  is 
so  incomplete  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  include  it  in  this 
report.  In  many  cases  we  simply  got  the  trees  marked  but 
none  cut.” 


Table  XX. — Cost  of  destroying  cedar  trees. 


Average  rate 

Acres 

Days 

No.  men 

per  day  per 

Total 

cleared* 

required 

employed 

man 

cost 

250 

2 

9 

$1.44 

$ 26.00 

50 

2 

11 

1.49 

32.00 

25 

2 

10 

1.50 

30.00 

25 

8 

2 

2.50 

40.00 

200 

6 

6 

1.83 

66.00 

Picking  galls 

4 

1 

2.00 

8.00 

100 

6 

2 

2.50 

30.00 

100 

5 

2 

2.50 

25.00 

5 

1 

1 

3.00 

3.00 

25 

10 

4 

1.25 

50.00 

40 

6 

5 

1.40 

42.00 

7.5 

10 

4 

1.87 

75.00 

100 

3 

5 

1.75 

26.25 

25 

6 

1 

2.00 

12.00 

125 

5 

4 

1.87 

37.50 

15 

1 

6 

1.67 

10.00 

21.2 

152.5  hrs. 

1.30 

19.93 

1113,7 

$532.68 

*By  the  term, 

acres  cleared,’ 

” we  mean 

only  such  land 

as  was  actually 

included  in  a general 

cedar  growth,  such  as  a 

grove  or  wood 

lot ; and,  in  the 

case  of  fence  row  trees,  the  immediately  adjacent  field  which  they  bounded.  This 
is  possibly  clearer  in  the  previous  detailed  statements. 


The  total  time  required  for  this  work  was  311  days  and 
the  average  rate  of  pay  was  $1.71  per  day.  The  average  cost 
per  acre  was  less  than  48  cents. 

From  these  figures  it  would  appear  that,  under  average 
conditions  such  as  exist  in  Berkeley  County  of  West  Virginia, 


68 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 

the  actual  cost  of  removing  cedar  trees  for  a radius  of  one 
mile  around  an  orchard  of  600  or  more  susceptible  trees  would 
be  about  equal  to  the  fruit  loss  which  might  be  expected  to 
occur  in  one  season  as  the  result  of  a severe  infection  of  apple 
rust.  In  other  words,  it  is  quite  possible  that  one  season's 
increased  profit  resulting  from  cedar  tree  destruction  will 
entirely  pay  for  the  cost  of  cleaning  up  the  cedars. 

The  cutting  out  which  was  done  during  the  winters  of 
1910-11  and  1911-12  undoubtedly  saved  much  of  the  York 
Imperial  apple  crop  from  complete  destruction  in  at  least  two 
large  orchards  in  1912.  In  so  far  as  we  know,  these  two  or- 
chard are  the  only  ones  around  which  there  had  been 
any  active  and  systematic  work  in  cedar  tree  destruction. 
Good  results  have  also  been  secured  from  the  more  recent 
work  along  this  line.  Mr.  Dodd,  in  his  report,  says,  “At  none 
of  the  places  mentioned  in  my  report  have  all  the  cedars  been 
cut  back  to  one-half  mile  and  in  some  places  they  are  up 
against  orchard  fences. 

“In  several  instances  our  cedar  cutting  of  last  year 
brought  good  results,  but  this  was  because  the  cedars  happen- 
ed to  be  cut  on  the  side  from  which  the  wind  blew  at  the  time 
the  spores  spread.” 

In  this  connection  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  we  know  of 
only  one  commercial  orchard  around  which  the  cedars  have 
been  destroyed  within  a radius  of  about  one  mile.  This  or- 
chard suffered  from  a very  severe  rust  infection  in  1912,  and 
the  owner  spared  no  effort  to  follow  out  our  recommendations 
as  to  cedar  tree  destruction.  By  the  spring  of  1914  there 
appeared  to  be  no  cedars  within  three-fourths  of  a mile,  and 
there  were  not  many  within  a mile  of  this  orchard.  During  the 
summer  of  1914  a large  number  of  the  commercial  orchards  in 
that  section  were  visited,  and  the  amount  of  rust  in  the  above 
mentioned  orchard  was  very  small,  as  compared  with  the 
others.  There  was  a scattered  infection  throughout  the  or- 
chard, but  that  was  to  be  expected. 

We  have  been  recommending  that  all  cedars  be  cut  for 
a radius  of  one  mile  around  orchards,  and  from  the  records 
at  hand  the  range  does  not  appear  to  have  been  set  too  far. 
Records  from  one  orchard  around  which  the  owners  felt  that 
cedar  cutting  had  been  quite  well  done  show  first,  that  con- 
siderable of  the  foliage  on  Rome  Beauty  trees  had  ten  or 
more  rust  spots  per  leaf ; second,  that  many  of  these  leaves 


Apple  Rust 


69 


[Aug., 


1915 


were  falling  about  the  1st  of  August;  third,  the  nearest  cedar 
trees  were  about  2300  feet  from  these  Rome  Beauty  trees,  and 
it  is  likely  that  most  of  the  infection  came  from  trees  which 
were  at  least  three-fourths  of  a mile  away.  The  cedars  were 
on  slightly  elevated  ground,  but  not  much  above  the  orchard 
level.  Observations  in  a number  of  other  orchards  indicate 
that  a half  mile  cedar  free  range  is  not  sufficient  to  prevent 
serious  infection  under  West  Virginia  conditions.  When  even 
a very  small  percentage  of  the  leaves  have  ten  or  more  rust 
spots  each,  the  infection  is  considered  serious  and  a glance  at 
Tables  II  and  III  will  convince  almost  any  reader  that  we 
have  set  our  present  limit  several  spots  too  high. 


Some  additional  facts  in  regard  to  the  range  of  infection 
have  been  given  on  page  30. 


DESTRUCTION  OR  PREVENTION  OF  RUST  GALLS 
ON  CEDAR  AS  A MEANS  OF  CONTROL. 

Cedar  trees  around  a house  are  sometimes  highly  valued 
and  the  owners  often  desire  to  remove  the  rust  galls  instead 
of  destroying  the  trees.  It  is  possible  that  this  practice  may 
be  effectively  carried  out  in  some  cases,  but  it  is  a most  tedious 
operation,  and  must  be  repeated  year  after  year  if  good  re- 
sults are  to  be  secured.  We  have  records  of  several  cases 
where  it  has  been  tried  and  abandoned.  A man  will  usually 
revise  his  ideas  as  to  the  value  of  a cedar  tree  by  the  time  he 
has  spent  ten  to  fifteen  hours  picking  rust  galls  from  it. 

The  spraying  of  cedars  as  reported  by  Heald  (1909,  p. 
112)  would  doubtless  be  far  more  practical  for  the  treatment 
of  cases  of  this  kind.  This  department  has  not  conducted  any 
experiments  in  the  spraying  of  cedar  trees. 


SUSCEPTIBILITY  OF  APPLE  VARIETIES. 

Many  lists  have  been  published,  giving  data  on  the  sus- 
ceptibility or  resistance  of  different  varieties  as  they  have 
been  observed  in  various  sections  of  the  country.  Table  XXI 
gives  some  of  the  more  important  varieties  and  their  suscep- 
tibility as  listed  by  different  states.  Four  signs  are  used  to 
indicate  varying  degrees  of  susceptibility  or  immunity.  3 
indicates  susceptible,  2 indicates  moderately  susceptible,  1 
indicates  resistant,  0 indicates  immune. 


70 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


Table  XXI. — Susceptibility  of  apple  varieties  to  rust  as  reported  by 

different  states. 


Alabama 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

Nebraska 

New  Hampshire 

New  York 

North  Carolina 

Rhode  Island 

Pennsylvania 

South  Carolina 

Virginia 

West  Virginia  | 

Wisconsin 

Arkansas  Black  

1 

0 

1 

1 1 

| 

1 

1 

1 1 

1 

0 

1 

Baldwin  

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

Ben  Davis  

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

Black  Twig  

1 

0 

1 

1 

Bonum  

3 

3 

3 

Fameuse  

1 

3 

1 1 

Fallawater  

3 

3 

I 

Grimes  

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

Jonathan  

3 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

Maiden  Blush  

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

Northern  Spy  

3 

N.  W.  Greening 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Red  June  

3 

0 

3 

3 

3 

Red  Astrachan  

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Rome  

3 

0 

o 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Shockley  

3 

3 

3 

Stayman  

0 

1 

1 

0 

Wealthy  

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Winesap 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

Yellow  Transparent  

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

York  Imperial  

2 

1 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

Some  varieties  are  listed  as  susceptible  in  one  state  and 
resistant  in  another.  While  there  is  undoubtedly  some  varia- 
tion due  to  the  difference  in  location,  we  are  inclined  to  think 
that  the  judgment  of  the  individual  as  to  what  constitutes 
resistance  or  susceptibility  is  a more  important  factor.  Ob- 
servations made  upon  single  trees  are  sometimes  misleading, 
since  noticeable  variation  is  often  apparent  among  trees  of 
the  same  variety.  Different  periods  of  rust  infection  may 
also  give  rise  to  confusing  data,  because  the  leaves  of  one 
variety  may  expand  more  quickly,  or  have  a shorter  period 
of  susceptibility  than  the  leaves  of  another  variety. 


From  the  data  at  hand  we  would  give  the  following  list 
for  West  Virginia: 


Susceptible 
York  Imperial 
Rome 
Wealthy 
Jonathan 


Moderately 

Susceptible 

Ben  Davis 
N.  W.  Greening 


Resistant 

Black  Twig 
Grimes 

Maiden  Blush 


Immune 
Baldwin 
Winesap 
Ark.  Black 
Stayman 
Yellow  Trans- 
parent 


[Aug.,  1915] 


Apple  Rust 


71 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS. 

The  meteorological  conditions  which  help  to  bring  about 
apple  rust  infection  should  receive  further  careful  study. 
This  laboratory  is  conducting  some  investigations  along  that 
line. 

Apple  leaves  are  susceptible  only  when  young,  and  a 
destructive  rust  infection  is  not  likely  to  take  place  after  the 
first  week  in  June,  at  this  latitude. 

A severe  rust  infection  results  in  deformed  fruit,  a gen- 
eral reduction  in  size  of  fruit,  and  great  loss  of  vigor  on  the 
part  of  the  tree.  There  is  a very  distinct  relationship  be- 
tween the  number  of  rust  spots  on  a York  Imperial  apple  leaf 
and  the  length  of  time  the  leaf  is  retained  by  the  tree. 

This  disease  may  be  controlled  by  the  use  of  spray  ma- 
terials, but  it  seems  impracticable  for  the  commercial  or- 
chardist. 

The  destruction  of  cedar  trees  has  been  found  an  effective 
means  of  control ; but  the  work  must  be  thoroughly  done ; 
and,  under  most  conditions  we  believe  that  the  cedar-free  area 
should  cover  a radius  of  at  least  one  mile  around  an  orchard. 
The  cost  of  cutting  out  cedars  has  been  found  to  be  com- 
paratively small.  An  area  including  1113  acres  was  cleared 
at  an  expenditure  of  $532.68,  which  was  less  than  48  cents 
per  acre. 

There  is  extreme  range  of  susceptibility  among  apple 
varieties,  and  even  different  trees  of  the  same  kind  show 
appreciable  variation. 

The  detailed  records  covering  our  work  on  this  disease 
are  on  file  at  this  Experiment  Station,  and  access  may  be  had 
to  them  by  anyone  interested  in  work  along  that  line. 


72 


W.  Va.  Agr’l.  Experiment  Station  [Bul.  154] 


LITERATURE  CITED. 


Austin,  C.  F.,  1901.  Orchard  notes— Ala.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bul.  117, 
p.  296. 

Bartholomew,  E.,  1912.  Apple  rust  controlled  by  spraying — In  Phyto- 
pathology, V.  II,  No.  6,  p.  253. 

Beach,  S.  A.  and  Bailey,  L.  H.,  1901.  Spraying  in  bloom — N.  Y. 
(Geneva)  Agr.  Exp,  Sta.  Bul.  196. 

Coons,  G.  H.,  1912.  Some  investigations  of  the  cedar  rust  fungus — 
In  Neb.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  25,  p.  217. 

Farlow,  W.  G.,  1880.  The  Gymnosporangium  of  cedar  apples  of  the 
United  States — Anniv.  Mem.  Boston  Society  Nat’l  History  28. 

Fulton,  H.  R.,  1913.  Infection  of  apple  leaves  by  cedar  rust — In  N.  C. 
Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  35,  (1912)  p.  62. 

Galloway,  B.  T.,  1889.  Report  of  the  section  of  vegetable  pathology — 
In  Rpt.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  p.  413. 

Giddings,  N.  J.,  1911.  Apple  rust — In  Farm  and  Orchard,  Vol.  I,  No. 
12,  p.  3. 

Giddings,  N.  J.  and  Neal,  D.  C.,  1912.  Control  of  apple  rust  by  spray- 
ing. In  Phytopathology,  V.  II,  No.  6,  p.  258. 

Halstead,  B.  D.,  1889.  Apple  rusts — In  Rpt.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  (1888) 
p.  370. 

Heald,  F.  D.,  1907.  Gymnosporangium  macropus — In  Science  N.  Ser. 
V.  26,  No.  659,  p.  219. 

1908.  Notes  on  Gymnosporangium  macropus — In  Science  N.  Ser. 
V.  27,  No.  68,  p.  210. 

1909.  The  life  history  of  the  cedar  rust  fungus — In  Neb.  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  22,  p.  105. 

Hein,  W.  H.,  1908.  Cedar  rust — Insect,  Pest  and  Plant  Disease  Bureau 
of  Neb.,  Cir.  1. 

Jones,  L.  R.,  1891.  Report  of  the  botanist — In  Vt.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt. 
4 (1890)  p.  139. 

1892.  Report  of  the  botanist — In  Vt.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  5 
(1891)  p.  133. 

1893.  Report  of  the  botanist — In  Vt.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  6 
(1892)  p.  83. 

McCarthy,  Gerald,  1893.  The  diseases  and  insects  affecting  fruit  trees 
and  plants,  with  remedies  for  their  destruction — In  N.  C.  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bul.  92,  p.  86. 

Pammel,  L.  H.,  1891.  Treatment  of  fungus  diseases — la.  Agr.  Exp. 
Sta.  Bul.  13,  p.  41. 

1905.  The  cedar  apple  fungi  and  apple  rust  in  Iowa.  Ia.  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bul.  84. 

Reed,  H.  S.,  Cooley,  J.  S.  and  Rogers,  J.  T.,  1912.  Foliage  diseases 
of  the  apple — In  Rpt.  on  spraying  experiments  in  1910  and 
1911.  In  Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bul.  195,  p.  6. 


Apple  Rust 


73 


[Aug.,  1915] 

Reed,  H.  S.  and  Cooley,  J.  S.,  1913.  The  effect  of  Gymnosporangium 
upon  the  transpiration  of  apple  trees.  The  effect  of  the  cedar 
rust  upon  the  assimilation  of  carbon  dioxide  by  apple  leaves — 
In  Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  (1912)  p.  82-94. 

Also  abstracted  in  Science  N.  Ser.  V.  XXXV,  p.  155. 

Reed,  H.  S.,  Cooley,  J.  S.  and  Crabill,  C.  H.,  1914.  Experiments  on 
control  of  cedar  rust  of  apples — Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  203. 

Reed,  H.  S.  and  Crabill,  C.  H.,  1915.  Respiration  in  apple  leaves 
infected  with  Gymnosporangium — In  Science  N.  Ser.  V.  XLI, 
p.  180. 

Stewart,  F.  C.,  1910.  Notes  on  New  York  plant  diseases — In  N.  Y. 
(Geneva)  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  328,  p.  316. 

Stewart,  F.  C.  and  Carver,  C.  W.,  1896.  Inoculation  experiments  with 
Gymnosporangium  macropus — In  N.  Y.  (Geneva)  Agr.  Exp. 
Sta.  Rpt.  14  (1895)  pp.  535  to  544. 

Thaxter,  R.,  1889.  Notes  on  cultures  of  Gymnosporangium  made  in 
1887  and  1888 — In  Bot.  Gaz.  14,  p.  163. 

1891.  The  Connecticut  species  of  Gymnosporangium — Conn.  Agr. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  107. 

Whetzel,  H.  H.,  1901.  Notes  on  apple  rusts — In  Proc.  Ind.  Acad. 
Sci.,  p.  255. 


October,  1915 


Bulletin  155 


Ifcst  Htrytma  Uniaerstty 
Agricultural  tExyrrimrut  Station 

MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  SOILS 

Experiments  With  Fertilizers 


No  FertMizers  HAY  1915  Fertilizer 


BY 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM, Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON, Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial 
and  business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.P.SHAWKEY,  State  Superintendent  of  Schools, 

President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  B.  TROTTER,  LL.D Acting  President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  M.S.  Agr.  Ph.D, 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S COOK,  JR.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

*0.  M.  JOHNSON,  B.  S.  Agr 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  M.S.  Agr 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M,Sc 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.Y.M 

tL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHUIS  - KRAK,  B.Sc 

ROBERT  SALTER,  M.S.  Agr 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  R.  JEFFRIES,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

•A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE.  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  B.S.  Agr 

•J.  B.  HUYETT,  B.S.  Agr 

•C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

O.  M.  KILE.  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Farm  Management 

Animal  Husbandry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Asistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

• • Editor 

Bookkeeper 


•In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
tin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


FERTILIZER  FACTS. 


Summarized  from  15  years’  experiments  at  the  'West 

Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  on 

the  basis  of  crop  values  assumed  in  this  bulletin. 

1.  Every  ton  of  manure  applied  alone  has  pro- 
duced an  increase  per  ton,  valued  at  $3.12. 

2.  Every  dollar’s  worth  of  acid  phosphate  ap- 
plied alone  has  given  an  average  of  $4.63  worth  of 
increase. 

3.  Every  dollar’s  worth  of  nitrate  of  soda  ap- 
plied alone  has  given  an  average  of  $.34  worth  of 
increase. 

4.  Every  dollar’s  worth  of  sulphate  of  potash 
applied  alone  has  given  an  average  of  $.37  worth  of 
increase. 

5.  Nitrate  of  soda  and  acid  phosphate  applied 
in  combination  have  .given  2^4  times  as  much  in- 
crease per  acre  as  acid  phosphate  alone,  and  $2.19 
worth  of  increase  for  every  dollar  invested. 

6.  Nitrate  of  soda,  sulphate  of  potash  and  acid 
phosphate  applied  in  combination  have  given  three 
times  as  much  increase  per  acre  as  acid  phosphate 
alone  and  $2.32  worth  of  increase  for  every  dollar 
invested. 

7.  Every  dollar  invested  in  lime  and  applied 
in  connection  with  complete  fertilizer  has  given  an 
increase  valued  at  $1.35. 


PLOT 


DIAGRAM  OF  FERTILITY  PLOTS 

PLOTS  ONE-TENTH  ACRE  EACH 


/6 

/3 

ZO 

ZJ 

zz 

Z3 

24 

Z5 

Z6 

zr 

zs 

Z3 

30 

3/ 

32 

33 

3?- 

35 

36 

No  Fertilizer 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate,  Sul- 
phate of  Potash,  Lime 

Manure  and  Lime 

No  Fertilizer 

Lime 

Ash  of  Manure  and  Nitrate  of  Soda 

No  Fertilizer 

Manure 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate  and 
Sulphate  of  Potash 

No  Fertilizer 

Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
No  Fertilizer 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Acid  Phosphate 
Sulphate  of  Potash 
No  Fertilizer 

Acid  Phosphate 
Nitrate  of  Soda 


No  Fertilizer 


Experiments  With  Fertilizers 

By  FIRMAN  E.  BEAR 


The  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  has 
conducted  a series  of  fertilizer  experiments  since  1900  on  the 
Experiment  Station  farm  at  Morgantown.  Three  bulletins, 
numbers  99,  112  and  131,  have  been  published,  giving  the  re- 
sults of  the  fertilizer  tests.  The  present  publication  is  intend- 
ed as  a summary  of  the  former  bulletins  together  with  ad- 
ditional data  secured  since  the  publication  of  Bulletin  No.  131. 

Plan  of  the  Experiments. 

The  original  plan  of  these  experiments  was  devised  by 
Horace  Atwood.  A part  of  the  station  farm  lying  along  the 
Morgantown  and  Pt.  Marion  pike  was  laid  off  in  tenth  acre 
plots.  Each  plot  was  made  two  rods  wide  and  eight  rods 
long  with  a three  foot  space  between  plots.  The  plots  were 
numbered  serially  from  18  to  36.  In  order  to  determine 
whether  there  was  any  in-equality  in  the  soil  every  third  plot 
was  left  unfertilized.  Accordingly,  plots  18,  21,  24,  27,  30,  33 
and  36  are  no-fertilizer,  or  check  plots.  Three  of  these  check 
plots  have  been  discarded  as  checks. 

The  tile  drain  passing  near  plot  18  became  stopped  up 
and  the  yields  were  abnormal. 

Plot  24  had  been  used  as  a check  until  1913  when  by  mis- 
take this  plot  was  given  an  application  of  manure  intended 
for  plot  25.  Although  the  manure  was  raked  off  with  a hand 
rake  a few  days  later,  the  plot  was  ruined  as  a check  plot.  The 
yield  of  wheat  on  this  plot  in  1914  was  19.83  bushels  per  acre 
as  compared  to  5.92  bushels,  the  average  of  the  other  check 
plots.  The  yield  of  hay  on  plot  24  in  1915  was  2,660  pounds 
per  acre  as  compared  to  198  pounds,  the  average  of  the  other 
checks. 

It  became  necessary  to  discard  plot  36  because  this  plot 
had  a tendency  to  wash  and  did  not  give  a fair  check. 

In  the  original  report  of  the  experiments  the  increase 
produced  by  the  use  of  fertilizer  was  computed  by  taking  the 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15i5 


average  of  the  two  nearest  check  plots  and  subtracting  this 
from  the  yield  of  the  fertilized  plot.  Since  three  of  the  check 
plots  were  discarded  it  was  found  necessary  to  take  the  aver- 
age of  all  the  remaining  checks  and  subtract  this  from  the 
yield  of  the  plots  receiving  fertilizer. 

The  yield  of  the  remaining  check  plots  indicate  that  the 
soil  is  naturally  fairly  uniform  in  productivity.  The  total 
produce  of  these  check  plots  since  1900  is  as  follows : 

Pounds  Produce 


Plot  21 

38,500 

Plot  27 

41,940 

Plot  30 

39,250 

Plot  33 

36,615 

The  soil  on  which  these  fertilizer  tests  are  being  conduct- 
ed is  mapped  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Soils  as  Dekalb  silt  loam. 
It  has  been  formed  by  the  disintegration  of  the  grayish  shales 
and  fine  grained  sandstone  overlying  the  Pittsburg  vein  of 
coal.  The  soil  is  naturally  well  drained,  and  easily  tilled  but 
has  a tendency  to  dry  out  too  rapidly.  It  is  only  moderately 
productive  normally  but  can  be  made  very  productive  if  well 
treated.  The  original  timber  consisted  mostly  of  oak  and 
chestnut. 

The  Crops  Grown. 

No  definite  rotation  was  adopted  but  a variety  of  crops 
were  grown  in  order  to  determine  the  effect  of  fertilizer 
treatment  on  a number  of  different  crops. 

Since  1900  there  have  been  three  crops  of  corn,  two  crops 
each  of  timothy,  rye,  clover,  and  wheat  and  one  crop  each 
of  oats,  cowpeas,  potatoes,  and  timothy  and  clover  mixed. 

Fertilizer  Treatment. 

In  order  to  magnify  the  effect  and  overcome  the  element 
of  time  to  a certain  extent,  very  liberal  applications  of  fer- 
tilizer were  made.  The  first  application  of  fertilizer  was  made 
in  the  spring  of  1900  as  a top  dressing  on  rye.  Later  applica- 
tions have  been  made  with  a fertilizer  drill,  the  fertilizer  be- 
ing applied  immediately  before  planting  the  seed.  In  1902 
for  the  crop  of  clover,  in  1907  for  the  crop  of  rye,  and  in  1908 
and  1914  when  the  plots  were  seeded  to  timothy  and  clover 
no  fertilizer  was  applied  to  any  of  the  plots.  The  first  year 
the  carrier  of  phosphoric  acid  was  Thomas  slag,  since  then 
acid  phosphate  has  been  used. 


October,  1915]  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


7 


The  following  shows  the  amount  and  kind  of  fertilizer 
applied  annually  to  each  plot,  with  the  exceptions  noted : 

Plots  18,  21,  24,  27,  30,  33  and  36.  No  fertilizer. 

Plot  19.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate ; 40  pounds  acid  phosphate ; 15  pounds  potassium 
sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906)  ; 100  pounds  lime  in  1900,  150  pounds  lime  in  1906  and 
200  pounds  lime  in  1912. 

Plot  20.  Two  tons  stable  manure;  100  pounds  lime  in  1900,  150  pounds  lime  in  1906, 
and  200  pounds  lime  in  1912. 

Plot  22.  100  pounds  lime  ip  1900  and  in  1903,  150  pounds  in  1906,  and  200  pounds 
in  1912. 

Plot  23.  Ash  from  two  tons  of  stable  manure,  together  with  an  amount  of  nitrogen 
in  the  form  of  sodium  nitrate  equivalent  to  the  nitrogen  originally  present  in  the 
stable  manure.  Applications  made  in  1900  and  in  1901.  Since  then  no  further  appli- 
cations until  1912  when  it  received  40  pounds  of  a 4-16-4  fertilizer. 

Plot  25.  Two  tons  stable  manure  applied  annually  except  in  1903. 

Plot  26.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate ; 40  pounds  acid  phosphate ; 15  pounds  potassium 
sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906.) 

Plot  28.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate;  15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds 
in  1906). 

Plot  29.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate;  15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds  in 

1906). 

Plot  31.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate ; 40  pounds  sodium  nitrate. 

Plot  32.  15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906). 

Plot  34.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate. 

Plot  35.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate. 

1902,  1907,  1908,  1914  and  1915  no  fertilizer  applied  on  any  of  the  plots. 

1913  only  y2  of  original  applications  of  fertilizer. 


Total  Amounts  of  Fertilizers  Applied  Per  Acre 
From  1900  to  1915  Inclusive. 


Nitrate  of 

Acid  Phos- 

Sulphate of 

Plot 

Soda  Pounds 

phate  Pounds 

Potash  Pounds 

Lime  Pounds 

Manure  Tons 

per  Acre 

per  Acre 

per  Acre 

per  Acre 

per  Acre 

19 

4200 

4200 

1625 

4500 

20 

4500 

210 

21 

22 

5500 

23 

30  Ash 

of  40  tons  of 

manure  until 

1912 

190 


26 

4200 

4200 

1625 

27 

28 

4200 

1625 

29 

4200 

1625 

30 

31 

4200 

4200 

32 

1625 

34 

35  4200 


4200 


8 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  155 


Plot  19 

Lime  and  Fertilizer 
5800  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  20 

Lime  and  Manure 
7400  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  21 
No  Fertilizer 
100  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  22 
Lime 

750  lbs.  Hay 


October,  1915]  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


Plot  28 

Acid  Phosphate 
Sulphate  of  Potash 
1440  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  29 

Sulphate  of  Potash 
Nitrate  of  Soda 
360  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  31 

Nitrate  of  Soda 
Acid  Phosphate 
2590  lbs.  Hay 


Plot  34 
1030  lbs.  Hay 
Acid  Phosphate 


J eAtix*. 


POUNDS  OF  PRODUCE  PER  ACRE, 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  155 


S g 

22  *o 


o o < 

S?  CM  ’ 


O O O O C>  O O 

lO  CO  I»  CO  00  CO 

O0  CM  CM  CM  CO  CM  OJ 


S 2 s § 


CO 

LU  „ 

g°  » 

s<^ 


2 § 

cO  eo 

CM  T-l 


12  2 
2 to  S 


2 g 


eo  <m  cm  co  cm 


ou:^ 
So  « 
o = 


g g § 8 § 

N N M OO  CO 

!>•  •<*«  ~ 04  Ui 


g g 


ggggggggggsggg 


8 2 


2 


2 


»og®g®»og»og 

-cj«eMeo®®t^tot'.co 

eoococot-eocousco 


g a 

O eo 

CM  *-1 


3->  >» 
Sox 
o 


CM  '-I  t-  CM 


s s § 


g g g 

CM  «w>  CD 

CM  lO  CM 


®®®®o®®®® 

CO  CO  CO  Gft  CM  CO  CO  lO  CO 

10  ^ eo  oo  «o  ® r-- 

CO  -Tf,  1 y—i  CO  T—c  CO  t 


y—t  CO  t>.  CM  UO 


O 111 

g> 

^CC 


2 S 


o 2 S3 

2 3 2 


05  CO 


C*  *-H  *-H 


cc 

LU 

A) 

<D 

a 

0) 

N 

fH 

<D 

o* 

t-< 

CD 

fcj 

O 

t-l 

CD 

N 

z 

s 

N 

_! 

>o 

O 

CM 

Ah 

<o 

% 
o 3 

2 

d 

& 

S 

CD 

© 

u 

3 

d 

Ph 

o' 

t, 

<D 

M* 

o 

CM 

W 

Fh 

o> 

€ 

Ah 

o 

CM 

s 

<1> 

*o 

O 

CM 

f— 

CC 

LI 

6 

U 

% 

Ph 

o 

3 

O 

Ph 

o 

«3 

§ 

CM 

A« 

o 

6° 

CM 

fl| 

fc 

Ph 

Q 

s? 

2 

At 

o 

U. 

w 

s 

5? 

43 

S3 

£ 

fc 

S3 

fc 

S 2 


CM  CM  CM  CM 


g g 8 


•Plots  sown  to  timothy  and  clover  but  on  account  of  unfavorable  weather  very  poor  crop  in  1908.  Plots  were  mowed  and  hay  left  on  ground. 

fCalculated  yields. 


POUNDS  OF  PRODUCE  PER  ACRE  (Continued). 


October,  1915]  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 

§ 


TOTAL 

PRODUCE 

120605 

mmim 

38600 

36615 

69270 

43075 

139670 

117910 

42170 

76995 

52215 

39480 

95940 

41565 

36845 

63415 

41195 

1915 

CLOVER 

Hay 

5800 

7400 

100 

750 

2100 

*2660 

5650 

3250 

230 

1440 

360 

230 

2590 

260 

230 

1030 

160 

1914 

WHEAT 
Grain  Straw 

4380 

5420 

710 

1270 

3060 

*3010 

3420 

3460 

780 

2520 

890 

780 

2450 

820 

770 

990 

760 

1720 

1080 

350 

580 

1490 

*1190 

1380 

1590 

370 

1230 

560 

370 

1500 

380 

330 

560 

340 

1913 

OATS 

Grain  Straw 

2625 

6000 

680 

650 

1170 

420 

3760 

1800 

400 

1130 

820 

710 

1410 

570 

550 

1250 

470 

875 

1250 

220 

250 

530 

280 

1040 

800 

250 

620 

380 

290 

790 

330 

300 

750 

330 

1912 

CORN 

Grain  Stover 

4190 

4600 

2900 

3080 

4620 

1400 

4400 

4450 

2900 

4020 

2300 

1990 

4200 

2400 

1920 

2050 

1380 

4630 
5010  | 
1500 
2470 
3550 
1330 
4800 
4890 
1550 
3170 
2050 
1900 
4080 
2330 
1900 
2100 
1400 

AH10INI1 

IT6T 

6090 

6240 

1130 

1100 

890 

900 

i 6640 

6090 
850 
2280 
2390 
930 
4320 
850 
570 
2290 
1740 

1910 

TIMOTHY 

Hay 

1 

9000 

10400 

1305 

1240 

1120 

1180 

9000 

8700 

1275 

3475 

3880 

1375 

7300 

1285 

1260 

3410 

2885 

1909 

TIMOTHY 
& CLOVER 
Hay 

5600 

6800 

755 

535 

490 

535 

7800 

4700 

505 

1640 

2125 

705 

4500 

430 

305 

845 

720 

£ 


DC 

LU 

N 


2 -r*  <u  Ph  s cm 
S3  a h.  3 a 

S o 


s o ^ 

*-»  CM  O 

§3  ^ « 


„ 3 
O 3 

CM  3 O 

B S £ 


^ H L?  ^ - PH 

§ B £ 

o o a.  o 

z z K z 


S O ^ 

® CM  << 

Ph  Ph 


11 


I 


o 

CM 


U3  CO  t"-  OO  Oi  ® i-t  N « 

CM  CM  CM  CM  CM  5*5  CO  CO  CO 


Q. 


♦Abnormal  yields  due  to  an  accidental  application  of  manure  which  was  subsequently  removed  with  a rake. 


INCREASE  IN  YIELD  DUE  TO  FERTILIZER. 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15i5 


INCREASE  IN  YIELD  DUE  TO  FERTILIZERS  (Continued 


October,  1915] 


EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


13 


Check*' PLots^.  .°.f. 561  I 1279  876  23.37  2222  8.38  552  5.92 


VALUE  OF  INCREASE  PER  ACRE  DUE  TO  FERTILIZER. 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


[Bulletin  155 


Ll] 

>- 

oc 


co  co 

CO  t-- 

»o  CO 


o 

co' 


CTJ  CO  00 

O »0  CM  CO 

OO  CM  CM  CM  cm' 

«-<  r-t  cm 


55 


to 

§ 

3 


A 


09 


< 


55 


CD  . 
3 ; 

”3  • 
> : 
c n 

cS  P-l 


22 
CD  ^ 


VALUE  OF  INCREASE  PER  ACRE  DUE  TO  FERTILIZER  (Continued) 


October,  1915] 


EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


Vh 


AVERAGE  YEARLY  VALUE  PER  ACRE  OF  INCREASE. 


16 


W.  YA.  AGR’Li.  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


[Bulletin  155 


to  to  K>  CO  CO  W CO 
0>  00  <D  HA  fcO  Oi 


Octiber,  1915]  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


17 


CD  Average  Yecr/y  Va/oe  offocrease.  per  /7c re. 
■■  Yiveroge  Yeor/y  Cos  / /©r/// <zer per /9c  re . 

I 

: 

9 

1 

rl 

1 

FV-OT.  35. 

_ 

3 

IL 

4.  3 Z. 

3 

Li 

/.  29. 

] 

L 

8 

J 

2 

[ 

•6 

Ji 

23 

Nitrate  of  Soda 
Acid  Phosphate 
Sulphate  of  Potash 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Acid  Phosphate 
Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate  of  Potash 
19  Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate,  Sulphate  of  Potash  and  Lime 
25  ♦Manure 

♦No  estimate  put  on  the  cost  of  manure 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  155 


The  calculations  of  the  value  of  the  increase  were  made 
by  using  the  average  farm  values  of  the  products  in  West 
Virginia  since  1900  as  obtained  from  the  Year  Book  of  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  which  were  as  follows: 
corn,  $.65;  wheat,  $.95;  oats,  $.45;  rye,  $.75;  hay  $14.00;  en- 
silage, $4.00 ; stover,  $5.00 ; straw,  $5.00.  The  following  val- 
ues were  placed  on  the  fertilizers  and  do  not  take  into  consid^ 
eration  the  cost  of  delivering  from  the  railway  station  to  the 
farm  and  making  the  application : acid  phosphate,  $16.00 ; 
nitrate  of  soda,  $60.00;  sulphate  of  potash,  $50.00;  lime,  $5.00. 
The  fertilizer  applications  per  acre  during  the  experiment 
have  totaled  4,200  pounds  of  nitrate  of  soda,  4,200  pounds  of 
acid  phosphte,  1,625  pounds  of  sulphate  of  potash,  4,500J 
pounds  of  lime  and  190*  tons  of  manure. 

t 5,500  pounds  lime  on  plot  22. 

* 210  tons  manure  on  plot  20. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

A study  of  the  results  from  the  experimental  use  of  fer- 
tilizers at  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 
justifies  the  following  conclusions: 

1.  Manure  is  a material  of  sufficient  fertilizing  value  to 
entitle  it  to  more  consideration  than  many  farmers  give  it. 
Even  when  applied  in  such  liberal  quantities  as  it  has  been 
in  these  experiments,  every  ton  of  manure  has  produced  an 
increase  valued  at  $3.12. 

2.  The  importance  of  acid  phosphate  as  a crop  producer 
is  such  that  one  need  not  hesitate  to  buy  and  apply  it  in 
liberal  quantities. 

3.  If  we  subtract  the  value  of  the  increase  produced  by 
nitrate  of  soda  alone,  from  the  value  of  the  increase  produced 
by  acid  phosphate  and  nitrate  of  soda  in  combination,  it  ap- 
pears that  for  every  dollar  invested  in  acid  phosphate  $9.14 
worth  of  increase  crop  was  produced.  This  indicates  that  if 
more  legumes  had  been  grown  on  the  soil  and  the  amount  of 
nitrogen  in  the  soil  had  been  increased  thereby  we  could  ex- 
pect a greater  return  from  the  use  of  acid  phosphate  on  the 
plot  receiving  acid  phosphate  alone. 


October,  1915]  EXPERIMENTS  WITH  FERTILIZERS 


19 


4.  The  return  per  dollar  invested  in  acid  phosphate 
is  decreasing  as  the  years  go  by,  where  acid  prosphate  is  used 
alone.  This  is  probably  because  of  the  fact  that  nitrogen  is 
becoming  a seriously  limiting  factor.  If  legumes  had  appear- 
ed oftener  in  the  rotation,  this  decrease  would  probably  not 
have  taken  place. 

5.  Under  the  system  of  farming  practiced  in  this  experi- 
ment, complete  fertilizers  would  be  more  desirable  than  acid 
phosphiate  alone.  But  this  is  not  an  ideal  farming  system  for 
the  economical  maintenance  of  fertility.  No  attempt  has  been 
made  to  keep  up  the  supply  of  organic  matter,  no  manure  has 
been  applied  to  the  fertilizer  plots  and  only  one  leguminous 
crop  has  been  grown  every  five  years. 

6.  The  results  indicate  that  the  complete  fertilizer  would 
have  been  less  profitable  if  some  catch  crop  ihadi  been  plowed 
under  and  legumes  had  played  a more  prominent  part  in  the 
rotation. 

7.  In  determining  which  fertilizing  material  or  mixture 
of  fertilizing  materials  is  the  most  profitable  several  things 
must  be  taken  into  consideration.  In  applying  the  complete 
fertilizer  we  may  secure  a larger  yield  but  we  also  have  more 
crop  to  handle,  more  fertilizer  to  haul  to  the  farm  and  apply, 
more  money  invested  in  fertilizer  and  consequently  a heavier 
risk  to  run,  against  which  we  must  be  insured.  The  complete 
fertilizer  in  these  experiments  gave  three  times  as  much  in- 
crease as  acid  phosphate  alone.  But  there  was  two  and  one 
half  times  as  much  fertilizer  to  handle,  twice  as  much  crop  to 
take  care  of  and  six  times  as  much  money  invested  in  fertilizer. 


April,  1916 


Bulletin  156 


3Hcst  Virginia  lUttiu'vsttu 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN,  W.  VA. 


DEPARTMENT  OF  HORTICULTURE 

A SECOND  REPORT 

ON  THE 

UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


Products  of  University  Farm  Garden  Exhibited  October  12th. 


BY 

ARTHUR  L.  DACY 


The  Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  writen  application.  Address  Director  of  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY .....Charleston,  W.Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY  . Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 


FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D Acting  President 


Agricultural  Experiment  Station  Staff 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D, 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S COOK  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

*0.  M.  JOHNSON,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  M.S.  Agr 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

+L.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  JR 

J.  H.  BERGHUIS  - KRAK,  B.Sc 

J.  P.  BONARDI,  B.Sc 

ROBERT  SALTER,  B.S.  Agr 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS.  B.S.  Agr 

* A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

*E.  A.  TUCKWILLE 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr.,  

A.  J.  SWIFT,  B.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Farm  Management 

Animal  Husbandry 

Soil  Investigatins 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

...Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Husbandry 

In  Charge  of  Tbacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Bookkeeper 


*In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


A Second  Report  on  the  University 
Farm  Garden 

By  ARTHUR  L.  DACY. 


In  Circular  17*  of  this  Station,  the  writer  presented  a 
report  of  the  results  secured  in  the  University  Farm  Garden 
in  1913  and  1914.  Another  year’s  records  being  available  it 
is  deemed  advisable  to  publish  them  at  this  time  together 
with  an  average  of  the  results  obtained  during  the  past 
three  years. 

The  University  Farm  Garden  as  cultivated  in  1915  oc- 
cupied four  and  seven-tenths  acres  of  land.  Of  this  area, 
three  acres  in  one  block  containing  Plots  1 to  30  inclusive  had 
been  in  garden  vegetables  in  1913  and  1914;  six-tenths  of  an 
acre  containing  Plots  31  to  36  inclusive  was  in  potatoes  in 

1914  and  in  sod  in  1913 ; and  one  and  one-tenth  acres  con- 
taining Plots  37  to  47  inclusive  was  a two-year-old  straw- 
berry bed  which  became  available  about  the  4th  of  July. 

The  work  was  carried  on  in  much  the  same  way  as  in 
1914,  the  garden  being  divided  into  tenth-acre  plots,  two 
adjoining  plots,  or  one-fifth  of  an  acre  in  some  cases  being 
planted  to  the  same  vegetable.  As  far  as  possible  a com- 
panion or  succession  cropping  plan,  or  both,  was  tried.  With 
the  exception  of  about  $125.00  worth  of  carrots,  parsnips, 
turnips,  spinach  and  kale  which  was  shipped  to  commission 
houses  in  Fairmont,  Clarksburg  and  Grafton,  all  of  the  pro- 
ducts of  the  garden  were  sold  at  wholesale  to  storekeepers 
in  Morgantown.  Accurate  records  were  kept  of  the  sales  of 
each  vegetable  and  of  each  plot  so  that  the  returns  from  both 
could  be  easily  computed  on  an  acre  basis. 

The  season  of  1915  was  on  the  whole  favorable  for  plant 
growth.  Rainfall  was  abundant  and  very  well  distributed 
throughout  the  season.  The  temperature  during  the  last 
week  in  May  was  abnormally  low,  and  in  consequence  pole 
lima  beans,  peppers  and  eggplants  suffered  somewhat  of  a 
check. 

The  following  table  presents  a condensed  record  of  the 

1915  garden  from  the  standpoint  of  the  different  vegetables 
grown,  giving  the  name  of  the  variety,  location,  area  planted, 
date  of  planting,  date  of  first  and  last  sale,  the  approximate 
yield,  the  approximate  price  at  which  it  sold  and  the  estimated 
returns  per  acre  for  each  crop.1- 


•Circular  17 — The  University  Farm  Garden — A.  L.  Dacy,  April,  1915. 
fThe  actual  sales  from  each  crop  are  given  in  Column  4 of  Table  II. 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


9J9y 
J9d  suarqaH 
ssoao  pgjBanjsg 


aoiJtj  aSBJaAy 
9jBunxcuddy 


PI9IA 

gjBunxojddy 


o o t>-  o o o o 

MNWOOOOlfl 


00®  HOSOOHiaiO 
HCOt-!OOOON(N 


aiBs 

}SBq  JO  9JBQ 


9IBS 

jsai^  JO  9JBQ 


SUIJUBId  JO  9JBQ 


LO  ^ LO  LO  C©  eg 

cOo-coos-^c^loco 


eg  eg 


t-  05 

t^t4<xoo®oo® 


<©  05  05  00  eg 

W®Cv|HH(MI>05 

®NI>00050566 


(sgjoy) 

pgjnBid  B9jy 


;oid  JO  -o M 


05  t-  t- 

HCOOONHCgCDt^ 

,l<K5COCDt>|>.(X)00 


O rH  O O t-H  eg  i-H 


a>  n a» 
axj  a 


K5  o o o 
rH  ® CO  00 
05  00  CO  l> 
eg 

eg  eg  i— i 


nhho 

o o o o 


OOH05M05t>l>0 
i— i eg  eg  co  h eg 


X 

d „ „ 
' 


d 3 


Ph 

d o 

i’S* 


o 


a ) 


O 


. “o 

«>-£ 

W)  W 


IK 


a> 

<x> 

bO. 


bJD; 

d 

"S 

m 


DO  TO  CO 


d 

re  § 

£J 


Tfi  O 05  o 
UO  05  O 05 

lo  eg  co  Lo 
eg  eg  i—i 


O CO  o 

eg  05  eg  co 

t>OHH 


05  CO 
M H cq  05 
CC  OO  O H 


® t>  t> 


3 PQ 

CD 

2 § 

Z ,d 

< E 

III  o 
OQ  ^ 


® -a- 


O 

re  (n 


J 

<u 


be 


I d 
CO  J 
Z 

< CO 

Hi 

OQ  CO 


OQ  H 


d £ 
° £ 

a> 

d 

d ® 

u 2 


w £ 

0)  o 


© 05  « 

© - a 


. 0}  fw 

,Q  9) 

© j. 


M>M 

5 v> 

t,  o 

-j  ctf  4C 
c5  © O 

! as 


<p 


s .§ 

a>  W g 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


x a>  : : 


10 

00  CO 
00  1-t 


O t-  00 
O TJH 
T~  Tf  05 


L0>  CO  ICO 
t-  C\.  U0 


: a n 

O x3 

^ o°° 

slN 


tH  "'f  Tt< 
CO  T-p  rpl 
00  00 


eg  co  eg 

t>-  r-  t~ 


IOHH 

■'*  -41 


co  : i>- 
oo 


Ifl  H 
CD  t>  t> 


00  00  CO 

eg  eg  eg 


- 42  ~ 42  -42 
X2  42  ^ ^ ^ 42 


m m jm 

sS  s3  2:  2 

42  ^3  42  42  42  42 


eg  eg  eo 


05 

i>-  r"‘ 

oo  oo 


DC  H 

ID 

> m 

> qj  : 

o cq 

_i 

Q.  J33 

— a> 

-I  <D 

D £ 

< 3 

a dp 


44  m 

O V. 

O 3 

& O 


© 

5 © 

O W3 


” . M ■ 
>»CQ  _ 


<u  >> 
$ 2 
c o as 

I H 

z cS 

DC  £ 

o S 

O Ed 


S3  CD  © 
03  £ >>2 
n ° h t 

p 3=  £ 

5 rr 


Q) 

„ > 
$ a> 


2 ^ 
2 


44  c3 


CD 


£ W pQ 

S-^-d 
2 © 
^?'d  ^ 

c3  a>  o 
Ed  Ed  P 


CD  m 

3®0 

qs  £ w>  2 

42  2 5 

S ® ^ 

O 5 n O 

P i=l  ^ P 

CD 

© c M s 2 

£ a>  . cr  cs 

c/2  O 02  5>  Ed 


O § 
a> 


CD 

’ft 
CO  02 

QC  02 

111  +-> 

m 2 

D 

o co 

D 

o co 


o 
o 
m 

CO  & 2 

I- 1 

< pq  O 

Q.  ^ ID 


0 0-1® 
O 2 < 2 
ID  CQ  * O 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


aaoy 
•iad  suanjay 

ssojo  pajrannjsg 

85.06 

53.66 

o CC 

oo  cc 
rH  co 
co  I> 

I 

| 724.50 

327.38 

407.60 

281.30 

382.50 

151.75 

172.93 

aoiaj  aSBaaAy 
a^tatxoaddy 

Eh 
E 3 
Xi 

per  lb. 

„ s. 

Eh  . Eh 
0)  N E3 

a.^  & 

dz.  bun. 
er  bu. 

d 3 d 3 

-a  X5  rE2  X5 

-o  t 

lO 

03 

UO 

CRN5D 
O O O 

| .054 

1 .04 

t-  rH  CO 
CONO 
N N <N 

a 

LO 

oq  05 

lO  W U5  lO 

t>-  l>-  t>-  t>» 
rH  rH 

1.12 
1.11  ‘ 

Pl9IA 

a^Boiixoaddy 

1 

j 10.2  dz.  bun. 

160  lbs. 
310  “ 

30  “ 

t-  o 

05  05 
03  CO 

d 

N Z Z 
33 

tH  tH  CO 
CO  i-l  CO 

d 

„ -a 
i o 

Ht<  tH 
CO 

28  bu. 

4 bbls. 
16  bu. 
15  bbls. 

27  bu. 
9 “ 

9IBS 
jo  ajna 

03 

03 

td 

5-29 

7-8 

10-11 

I 6-26 

9-23 

N005 
03  rH  tH 

id  cd  co 

10-4 

1 

10-28 

! 

11-30  | 

1 

6-26 

7-10 

9l«S 

jsjia  jo  ajBa 

rH 

5- 22 

6- 29 
10-11 

CO  rH 
CO  05 

C-  05 
-H  03  03 
lO  lO  LO 

o 

td 

9-30 

10-25 

6S*9 

OT-9 

SUIJUBIJ  JO  3JBQ 

5-4 

1 

1 4-9-15 
5-15-20 

4-8 

7-10 

1914 

1914 

3-15 

1 

| 8-* 

4-9  j 

4-10 

1 

4-5 

4-6-27 

(saaoy) 
pajnBij  Bajy 

.174 

.12 

05 
tH  O 

co  03 

03  CO 
O O O 

tH 

.1 

.1 

00  | 
lO 

03  © | 

loia  jo  -o^j 

03 

7 & 8 
11  & 12 
1 

CO 

Ttl  UO 
rH 

rH  05  CO 
03 

CO 

9 

15 

5 & 6 

1 

Name  and  Variety  l Vegetable 

d 

a 

a ■ 

o> 

_ 

m 

5ft 

t H 1- 

!§ 
j £ = 

2 ! § 

| 

L“ti  < 

1 ^ ® 

1 rv  T3  „ 

ar  s 

- i 

J £.3  " L 
JOffl 

d 

o 

09 

E9<c 

a , 
S m 

<u 

J)  T3 

IS.  1 

3 8" 

d 02  < 

- X ( 

- o . . 

U & " i 
J CQ  C 

winiuin& — i-rom  Sets 

Egyptian  or  Perennial  Tree 
White  Bottom  Sets... 

— hrom  Seed 

Prizetaker,  Yellow  Globe  Danvers,  | 

Early  Red,  Australian  Brown 

Eh 

£ H 

n 2 

L O 

0 1 

c ~ - < 

to  L 

Li  |C 

rcMO 

Prolific  Extra  Early,  Prolific  Early 

Market,  Record  Extra  Early,  Extra 

Early  Pilot,  Little  Marvel 

Burpee’s  Best  Extra  Early,  Blue  Ban- 
tam and  Harvester.. 

April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


O 

uo  o 

o 

: o 

o 

05 

to 

o 

O 

O 

o o 

tH- 

O 

Tt< 

Cv]  t- 

to 

: to 

o 

to 

eg 

o 

to 

o 

o to 

00 

to 

o 

eg 

ri 

eg 

: to 

oo 

CO 

o 

05 

eg" 

05 

eg’ 

rH 

to 

r-1 

00 

O CO 

eg 

: Hh 

ZD 

Hf 

ZD 

CO 

eg 

eg  eg 

O 

CO 

00 

CO 

• eg 

eg 

eg 

eg 

CO 

* 

3 

d 3 

,4 

3 

* 

- 3 

d 

3 

d - 

3 

— 

3 

d 3 d 

“C 

42 

42 

- 

Sr 

• d 

42  42  42  o 42 

■ 42 

42 

42  42  - 

42  42  42  42  4D  42 

0)  N H 

5^ 

p 

42 

Sh 

>• 

*• 

0)  4 

00  t>* 

ft 

CO 

CO 

Hf 

CO 

to 

rH 

o 

c 

eg 

rH 

tfl 

00  ZD 

to  to 

to 

o to 

t-  O 05 

00 

o to  oo 

to 

Hf 

o o to  CO 

lO 

o 

to  to 

o 

T— 1 

rH  rH 

zo  t- 

t~ 

o 

IG>  IQ 

CO 

Hf 

to 

rt<  CO 

eg 

to 

to 

t>  eg  o 

rH 

eg 

rH 

1-1 

lH 

7-1 

1-1 

P 

m 

P 

p 42 

- 

02 

42 

M 

d d 

N 

Tf 

CO 

42  42 
lO 

05  H 

3 

d 

_ t>- 

> to 

42 

to 

eg 

dz. 

to  to 

■“  3 

to-0 

.3  bu 

m 

3 

42 

% 2 2 d 

^ 42  42 

eg  to  H 

CO 

1 bbl 

2 bu. 

3 “ 

3 

42 

eg 

3 

to 

1 bbl 

3 

00 

3 

■°»o 

05  ZD 

!M 

eg 

I CM 

eg 

o rH  o eg  t-  oo 

rH 

rH 

eg 

rH 

CO 

C-  05  05 

rH 

CO 

eg 

o 

00 

00 

Hj<  CO 

ZD 

eg 

t> 

eg 

oo 

eg 

o 

CO 

eg 

rH 

eg  eg 

rH 

eg 

tO  rH 

rH 

eg 

rf 

eg 

eg 

CO 

d 

rH 

eg 

to 

to  d 

id 

d d 

d 

d 

05 

05 

d 

d 

rH 

rH 

7-1 

tO 

05 

00 

00 

oo  o 

05 

eg 

to 

eg 

3T 

CO 

CO 

1 

to  rH 

eg 

rH 

rH  CO 

co  eg 

eg 

to  00 

rH 

rH 

eg 

T— 1 

to 

rH 

tA 

oo  d 

d 

to  to  05 

d to 

id 

d d 

d 

d 

00 

05 

d 

d 

rH 

7-1 

1-1 

1-1 

CO 

05 

rH 

rH 

lO 

oo  o 

CO 

CO 

eg 

05 

CO 

rH 

r— 

1 rH 

05 

05  oo  eg 

to  CO 

CO 

00  rH 

CO 

rH 

CO 

rH 

eg 

id 

H- 

1 t> 

d 

HK 

h}H  OO 

H*<  d 

id 

id 

r-  oo 

00 

00 

05 

05 

, eg 

CO 

OO 

eg 

eg  eg 

rH 

: o 

rH  O 

eg 

o o 

o 

CO 

eg  Tf 

ZD 

CO 

& 

eg 

1 CO 

Tt< 

05 

<N1  00 

rH 

to 

rH  05 

00 

o 

to 

rH 

rH 

eg 

eg 

- 



eg 

1 ^ 





rH 

rH  rH 

rH  CO 

C\] 

a s 

zo 

I * OP 

S|s 

|£j?° 

UJ  3 
IQ-  £ 


<x> 

CO  "P 

LU 

O 

h 

< 

h 

o 

0. 


42  „ 
42  - 

o 


CO 

z _ 

^ s 

0. 

CO 

D 

Q.  m 


a 

a3  : 

P$ 

T3 
P : 
cS 

<X> 

42  . 

CO  o 

m3 

I 

CO  £ 

0'S: 

DC  CO 


r o 
<u 
> 
oJ 
M (XI 
O J 
m 1—1 
c3 

<Xi  |>> 

CO  o 

> 

o j 4* 

< I 

- 02  t: 

Q.  . O 

CO  CO  £ 


Table  I. — {Continued) . 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


aaoy 

aad  suanjan 

ssojo  pajBuiijsg 


^ CD 
OO  LO 
<M 


^2  P & 3 
^ ^ ^ 


aouj  a§BjaAy 
ajBunxojddy 


PiaiA 

ajBunxojddy 


aiBS 

ISBq  jo  ajBQ 


m m 

2 aS  3 

-o  £ ^ 


» P -Q 


CD 

N H lO 
MCMM 


N " & 
"C5  ^ ,0 


-O  rj  ,Q 


'O  3^ 
eg  co 


t~-  CD 
O 1-H 


aiBS 

jsai.a  jo  ajBQ 


eg  os 
oo  o 


SUIJUBId  JO  ajBQ 


CO 

i— I T-H 
CD  t>- 


(saaoy) 

pajuBjj  Baay 


;ou  jo  -om 


& 


& 


.5  j 

I £ 

O o 

<s 

x” 

4-1 

S-H 

a.  o 

co  £ 


W*  w 

3 TO 

I«g 

CO  3 

< ® E 

DS 

a > 

CO  £ 


® o 
CQ  g 

?L 

PQ  n-2 

rt*2  3 
0)  a3  P 

£ Z™ 

<D  5 

1-9  U 'C 

j°  hi  § 

2 6 ^ § 

O - a;  >» 

L_  C3  Sh 

3 (23 

H H Mffl 


G 

CO  o 

Q.  H 

z ® 

if 

I-  0, 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


9 


NOTES  ON  TABLE  I. 

A few  points  of  unusual  interest  regarding  the  crops 
grown  may  be  presented  briefly  as  follows,  considering  them 
in  alphabetical  order. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  most  profitable  planting  ot 
beans  was  that  of  July  17th  following  the  two-year-old  straw- 
berry bed.  The  poor  showing  of  the  pole  lima  beans  was 
due  Jo  the  fact  already  noted  that  the  latter  part  of  May  was 
wet  and  cold,  making  it  necessary  to  replant  nearly  the 
whole  plot. 

The  decided  difiference  between  the  spring  and  fall  crop 
of  cauliflower  grown  from  the  same  lot  of  seed  is  worth  em- 
phasizing. This  was  largely  due  to  the  more  favorable  condi- 
tions at  heading  time  afiforded  by  the  cool  fall  weather. 

Bv  far  the  most  profitable  planting  of  sweet  corn  was 
that  of  the  Extra  Early  Adams  variety  on  April  5th.  While 
this  is  not  a high  quality  variety  it  is  of  value  to  the  market 
gardener  because  of  its  great  hardiness,  productiveness  and 
early  maturity.  Coming  as  it  does  so  early  in  the  season  it 
always  brings  a good  price. 

The  variety  test  in  Plots  26  and  27  which  follows  showed 
the  Double  Barreled  Best  to  have  been  the  most  produc- 
tive. This  was  confirmed  by  the  results  in  Plots  33  and  34  in 


Fig.  I. — Plots  7 and  8 Cabbage  with  Lettuce  Between. 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


which  from  six  rows  each  of  White  Evergreen  and  Country 
Gentleman,  the  yield  was  34^4  and  31 2/z  doz.  respectively, 
while  the  five  rows  of  Double  Barreled  Best  produced 
37  11-12  doz.  In  both  cases  the  White  Evergreen  out-yielded 
the  Country  Gentleman.  Apparently  there  was  something 
wrong  with  the  Kendel’s  Early  Giant.  It  is  listed  by  seeds- 
men as  an  early  variety  and  was  planted  as  such.  It  proved 
to  be  decidedly  a mid-season  sort  in  this  test. 

Variety  Test  of  Sweet  Corn — 1915. 


Variety,  Seedsman  and  Yield 


■ 

Dates  of 
Harvesting 

Early  Mayflower 
Stokes  (Ears) 

Early  Fordhook 
Burpee  (Ears) 

Seymour’s  Sweet 
Orange  Burpee 
(Doz.) 

Double  Barreled 
Best  Stokes 
(Doz.) 

Kendel’s  Early 
Giant  Burpee 
(Doz.) 

White  Evergreen 
Burpee  (Doz.) 

Country  Gentle- 
man Burpee 
(Doz.) 

July  26 

5 

July  28 

5 

9 

August  4 

2 

9 

August  9 

10 

56 

2% 

August  11 

1 11-12 

1% 

August  13 

2 

4 % 

August  16 

3V2 

2% 

5 

3 

August  18 

2 

3% 

4 

3% 

August  20 

% 

3% 

1% 

514 

4% 

August  23 

41/4 

1% 

3% 

2% 

August  25 

1% 

% 

1 

2 

August  27 

2 

1 

1% 

August  30 

5-12 

1 

September  1 

y2 

1 

Total  Yield  (Doz.) 

1% 

6% 

12% 

23  7-12 

13 

18% 

12% 

The  returns  from  sweet  corn  were  exclusive  of  the  value 
of  the  stover  which  of  course  is  considerable  to  the  farmer 
as  it  makes  excellent  feed  for  stock  if  used  as  soon  as  the 
marketable  ears  are  sold. 

Of  the  onions  grown  from  seed  in  Plot  16  the  Prizetaker 
out-yielded  the  other  varieties. 

All  of  the  peas  in  Plots  5 and  6 having  been  planted  on 
the  same  day,  some  information  was  afforded  as  to  the  rela- 
tive earliness  of  the  different  varieties,  which  together  with 
some  data  on  the  varieties  planted  in  Plot  1,  is  presented 
as  follows: 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


11 


Variety  Test  of  Peas — 1915. 


No.  of 

Rows  Name  of  Variety 

5 Prolific  Extra  Early 

5 *Prolific  Early  Market. 

4 *Record  Extra  Early 

4 *Little  Marvell  

4 Extra  Early  Pilot... 

2 Best  Extra  Early 

2 Blue  Bantam  

2 *Harvester  


Date 

First 

Last 

Yield 

Planted 

Picking 

Picking 

(Bu.) 

4-5 

6-14 

6-25 

8.75 

4-5 

6-21 

6-23 

4.5 

4-5 

6-9 

6-23 

6. 

4-5 

6-21 

6-25 

5. 

4-5 

6-16 

6-16 

4. 

4-27 

6-28 

6-28 

2. 

4-6 

6-28 

6-28 

3. 

4-6 

7-5 

7-9 

3.75 

♦These  varieties  were  purchased  from  Stokes  Seed  Farms,  Moorestown,  N.  J. 
The  others  were  purchased  from  W.  Atlee  Burpee  & Co.  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

The  Irish  Cobbler  potatoes  planted  in  Plots  43  and  44 
were  planted  from  seed  which  was  obtained  from  T.  W.  Wood 
& Sons  of  Richmond,  Virginia.  This  firm  and  others  in  that 
part  of  the  country  place  large  quantities  of  northern  grown 
seed  of  this  variety  in  cold  storage  every  year  for  growers 
who  make  a practice  of  planting  it  in  July,  using  the  product 
for  seed  the  following  spring.  It  should  be  possible  for  West 
Virginia  farmers  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state  and  in  the 
lower  altitudes  elsewhere  to  follow  this  same  practice  to  good 
advantage.  In  the  instance  noted  a yield  of  approximately 
125  bushels  per  acre  of  tubers  suitable  for  seed  was  secured. 

In  Plot  12  a careful  record  was  kept  of  the  yield  of  one 
row  each,  of  eight  varieties  of  tomatoes,  each  row  being  140 
feet  long.  The  following  table  presents  the  data  of  interest : 


Variety  Test  of  Tomatoes — 1915. 


Variety 

Date  of  First 
Picking 

Yield  to  Aug. 
1st 

Yield  to  Aug. 
15th 

Total  Yield  to 
Sept.  17th 

Equivalent  to 
Bu.  per  Acre 
Of  Merob, 

Merch. 

Lbs. 

Culls 

Lbs. 

Merch. 

Lbs. 

Culls 

Lbs. 

O OT 

f-  J2 

£ ^ 

Culls 

Lbs. 

Earliana1  . 

6-30 

35 

9% 

1911/2 

51 

472 

172 

786.6 

I.  X.  L.2  

7-21 

18% 

31/2 

17714 

43i/2 

384 

123 

640. 

John  Baer2 

7-26 

4V2 

21/2 

74 

35% 

2811/2 

142% 

469.1 

Chalk’s  Jewel3 .... 

7-21 

101/4 

21/2 

13814 

34% 

3401/2 

1511/4 

567.5 

Bonny  Best1 

7-21 

7% 

1% 

130% 

27% 

363% 

132% 

606.2 

Greater  Balt.2 

7-28 

1% 

% 

24% 

17% 

2911/4 

98i/2 

485.3 

My  Maryland2 

7-26 

21/4 

% 

35% 

II1/4 

273% 

71% 

455.4 

Sunrise4  

7-21 

None 

4 

None 

33 

None 

348 

I 

580.5 

1 Seed  bought  from  Stokes  Seed  Farms  Co.,  Moorestown,  N.  J. 

2 Seed  furnished  by  J.  Bolgiano  & Son,  Baltimore,  Md. 

3 Seed  bought  from  W.  Atlee  Burpee  & Co.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

4 Seed  bought  from  Carter’s  Tested  Seeds,  Inc.,  Boston,  Mass, 

5 Culls. 


12  W-  VA'  AGHL-  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 

In  explanation  of  the  table  it  should  be  stated  that  the 
th°  these  varieties  received  the  same  treatment  except 
• the  row  °f  Stokes  Earhana  was  transplanted  from  four 

‘nh!\P?i!S  tHe  fieW  Wh'le  the  others  were  from  flats  in 
which  the  plants  were  set  2 x 2 inches.  Carter’s  Sunrise  pro- 

S “ ab«ndance  of  smooth,  attractive  fruit  but  all  too 
small  to  be  salable  in  our  market. 

A market  gardener  aims  to  have  a constant  supply  of  the 
different  vegetables  which  he  grows  at  the  time  when  there 

at  athe6  ft°r  them'  TihlS  reSUlt  may  be  secured  by  planting 
at  the  same  time  several  varieties  which  mature  at  different 

periods  (see  dates  of  picking  peas  and  corn  on  pages  11  and 
0),  by  making  successive  plantings  of  the  same  variety  at  in- 
tervals of  from  one  to  two  weeks  or  by  a combination  of  the 

T^blc1!  sl°dS'  eXami",ation  of  the  5th  a"d  6th  columns  in 
Tab  e I shows,  for  example,  that  there  was  a constant  supply 

of  string  beans  from  June  26th  to  August  10th.  There  was 

from  A r t?  9 ^ ‘°  Au^USt  19th  a"d  another  break 
from  August  31st  to  September  18th  after  which  there  was  a 

constant  supply  until  October  9th.  Under  some  circum- 
stances and  with  some  crops  these  breaks  in  the  supply  would 
thk  n?e^ntl  a senous,  Ioss  of  trade  for  the  gardener;  but  in 

Aulrfst  26tl kr  CtafVh!y  C,ame  at  opportune  times  for  from 
August  26th  until  September  16th— the  period  between  the 

semester  »t  fhT " Sc>001  t"d  the  °penin£  da-v  of  the  fa" 
town  Th  h UnlVerS1  yTth£re  are  no  students  in  Morgan- 

vegetables  h3S  3 marked  eftect  °"  the  market  for  green 

,Table  11  Presents  in  condensed  form  a record  of  the  1915 

It  divesr?r  16  standP°mt  of  returns  from  the  different  plots, 
t S ves  the  name  of  the  variety,  the  date  of  plantingP  the 

ceiptsefroLdtaiT  lniWhiCh  V °ccuP;ed  the  plot,  the  actual  re- 
estfmated®  o116  saIe  of  each  vegetable  in  each  plot  and  the 
estimated  gross  returns  per  acre  for  each  plot. 


The  Detailed  Record  of  Each  Plot — 19ir,  Garden. 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


13 


jo? 

aaoy  aad  stun} 
-8H  pajBraijsg; 


doao 
qoeg  raoaj 
sjdtaoaH  I^njoy 


rjgj  M ® 

¥ OQ  2 g 
03  • oo  a> 

cS  O ® 

a 03  .P!  -Jj 

° 2 
03 
£ 
o 


° a3  hf! 

o 2 «p 


a>  S3 

g a;  <u 
° u a» 
^ .02 
<X>  >» 


«*-i  a> 

o a:  — 


cc  32  i 

o a( 

s-  ^ 


CO  03  c 

^ 03  5 

>» « .5 

42  ^ a 

<M  a»  M t~-  rr>  03 

M ^ 42  tH  0! 

<33  -<->  n > • T2 

^ o u a)  ?0  © 

o «w  CC  42  rn  -r 

S O £ 

o 03  O 

£ 


~ 03 
«w  42 
O ^ 


,5  c o w 

03  f- 

£ jjt-'g 

"cp 

42 


S3  cS 


t-  > 

03 


a >> 
cS 


cS 

03 

03 

03 

O 

£ 

o 

g 

3 

-33 

■w 

>» 

03 

03 

^03 

u 

ei_i 

03 

cc  ~“ 

2 m 

42  ® 


X o 
"m  °. 

. 1 

a ^ 42  -Vr-  , 


Ut  LC 

o"  c^' 


t>*  <35 
C'i  00 


jou  paidnooo 

doao  s.i^a  jo  -ox 


_ l£3 


£ >>  T3  “?  £ 
o 'Z  s2  Tt<  a 
I « c3  eS  „ 02 
V 03 


_ o > ® 03 

5 1 S o ^ 
^ ® s * 

g >;tJ  >>° 


o ^ 
c3  <^- 


cx  c >s  . r 
.2  d)  ^ h ^ 
o ® t'*  P 


. 43  02 


03 


”o3  ^ c rn  ® 

“ -!®S 


— 03 


03  03  03 
03  42  33  3 
O ^ cS  £ 

g C3  ^ O 


O S3  03  Q 
~ ft  % * 

^ ~ -3  ~ * 


03  o 
03  ,_ 

o 


O 

-j_. 

- 

03 

£ 

03 

O 

1-1 

O 

-3 

r— 

03 

03 

03 

cS 

£ 

02 

03 

** 

-t— > 

0> 

03 

O 

’03 

a 

a 

O 

1— • 

jj 

33 

i. 

<-! 

0 

03 

0 

> 

O 

03 

£ 

S3 

r23 

P 

5 

:- 

05 

- 

03 

, 

03 

— 

03 

■i_> 

03 

O 

"a 

2-  > 

03 

r- 


03  2 

ir- 
es 

42  U 
. 42  03 
03  rf  > 
£ 03  O 

P >»  03 
U 42  > 

^03^ 

03  £ — 

5-2  5 

£ 

o — . 


^ 03  ^ 
S £ a. 


! O 03 

°§ 

a 

03  , 

or  05 


6 =2 

u u 

. 03 

°g 


03  .5 

o o 

10  ei_i 

£ o 


0^  33 

^ CS  ® 

03 

I g-r 

~ bfl  o 


2 


QC  C5 


32  -•->  £ -*->  tt-  — 03  o — C3  ° 

sslso^lslss^ 


- m as  a> 


O 


IX 


03  — 5 

^ ^ rf. 

03 


i •= 


0C  J- 
tt  o 

03 


ca^  *- 


ra  a» 

a ^2 


*3.  25  02 


JOij  jo  -ox 


Table  II. — {Continued) . 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156: 


ioi j joj 
ajoy  aad  suani 
-8H  paiBtnnsg 


d O 

•3  © 

£ boo 
3 d 

m 

g o 
£ o 


00  fl  M 
d ^ 


£ be  § 

O bJ3° 
w ® Ph 
•d  «£  ® 

§ ° I 

03  M © 

g o g 

| *“  S 

?sa 

© o 

o 

O D !H 
02  ^ ° 
^ Ph  'g 

o <p  td 

^ 33 

03  — to 


d i d 
03© 

d © -m 
o >■  © 
© 2 rQ 
§ d +j 

1:3  Ph  02 

*3  “ 

° £ oa 
. *-<  d 
£ *~  £ 
© v, 

do© 
<w  o 

<D  S 
© 


d i d A, 
W)  bX)  g © 

d © © © 


•°  JS  g 

O 


© 


© 


'd  o o 


d ^ 
ft  2 a 

© 6X5  © 
!-  M d 

g © O 
? ,q 

rj  d • 

to 

© © 03 
“3  be  CO 

-r  © o 

£ > ft 


© -d  2 w 
> q_|  s-<  jd  „.. 
H © d g ® 

. d S © -M 

© Ph  3 3 

bD©  O 

| I-  ““ 

C3  e^j 

« o 

If 

|s 

O 


oo  -r. 

„ g g> 
®’-g  o 

* 2s 
.2  »- 
,2  >> 
"-I  £h  02 

+->  1 d 

o „rd 


<D  ft  d 33 

3 « d e 

© 

Ph 

03  d 
© M 


pH 

be 

rC  W © 

d « O ,3 


da  ©® 

« 0 & ™ be 

8 § £ .2  .2 


doao 
qoeg  uiojj 
s^dtaoan  lenjoy 


o o 
HO  oo 
(£  c £ 


CO  o 
O LO 
© 03 


OLOIO 

H^N 

cl 


o o 
to  o 
co  d 


OO  WO 

UO  r-J 

03*  d oo 


10id  paidnooo 

doao  sXbq  Jo  -on 


3ft 


S 

3o 

ft 

CO 

C3, 

o 

O 


ft  £ 

be  © 
be_] 
H 

>?  o 
■3  at 
d cl 
d a 
© d 

«55 

^ • 
© 72 
3 

5 ffl 


PQ 


s o 

03  Ph 


- t- 

ca  w 
•S’0' 

• ft  Ph 

CQ  d 


03  a> 
© 03 


d3 
U 

sl  3 


72 

■C  ? § 
i o o 
d t;  p- 
<M  H 

CO  tH 


?-c  Ph 


t- 
<cq 

^ t- 
„ <M 

^ b^- 
^ 8 © 
-dS  ^ 

dO  •§ 

3j  !W  w 

72  O ^ 

~ w m 
* £ £ 
OOO 

P*  pH  pH 


© o 

©.a 


^°° 

.a 

-c  © © 
efi  s3  © 

« .a  5 

ft  +-> 
© 72  © 
to^J 
03  . M 

d J - 


ph  ^a 


O 


C/2  - 

o O 


^ c 
q 72  at 

02  ^ § 

I g” 
|w 

^ Ph 
^ 03  W 


Ph  _ 

3 c 

H 5.  . 

.v  § 

Ph  PO  C<J  ^ 
^ © 

H d> 
^ P o 0 

2 S 5 . 

§ «s  c ^ 

^ ti  p 
d, 


lOId  JO  ox 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


15 


© t-  aJ 

^ bO 

r-  © 

© © 

■g  S M 

^ Cu 
^ © 
*3-° 

■.C!  05  ,Q 

.1-  'O 
> c3  'O 
& © © 


CO  o o 
00  00  © 
oi  tj<  oo 

TC  H N 


uo  L 

tH 

' m 

9 e 
© 


© © 
r w: 

b o3 

.C 

b © 

ft 

'CO  . - 

©O?  ® 

c-c ^5  0 
&B*%8 

b,  & Jo 

o 

>,«£.§s 

|?g-sh 

£.*  d O 

fig*"* 
=»  ■S’2  I 

73  g e3  § <2 
c © ss  2 © 
H ©« 


^ © o 

® 9 ^ 


^ m 3 

b>  o 

© fl 

© P-  

ft  o ’O 

rQ  02 

© *-•  PS 
t-_  c 

HD 

© 


© © 
c<3  © & 


pH 

a3 

?3  GO 
o3  ,© 

*S  £.2 

05  «©  > 

£ t>  P 

25  « 
^~g 

© *s 

'gaS 

UD  ° g O 
-U5  3 ft 
N rl  o 
r-i  t-H  .22 

» T—l  «4— I *d 

05  60-  O b 


+J  O 

.ft  Ph 
.ft  (=1 

§ o 

6g 


O ft 
ft 

X3  rr, 


es 
2 £ 


o ® 

W 4-> 

« 3 

21 
K ft 

tn  w 


© 05 

® S 5 

C ro 

2 ©^ 
"a  d ft 
or 

f.  . O 'C 


£ £ © 


O eG 


%£o6 


c C/5  'C 

c © 


© 

o< 


05 


S 

is  13  £ 

O'O'^ 

rl 

S «o 
«Hg 

© os'  ^ 

N ^ P 

*C  © (ft 

P-1  DQ 
(b  * W 


^ Ph 

"3  g 

o3  w 

S? 

£ § 
ft  ® 

tf  ^ 

.5  c3 

£ls 


in> 


,1^ 

(§° 


O 1-1  o o lc  o 

© 05  © o !<cq  LC 

cc^i>'t  I©  ui 

:<CC|  ■<^< 


: X 
iO  d 


PS  Ph 
O ^ 


rH  'O 

£ ft 
O a3 

o’® 
ffl  o° 


2° 
^ ai 


ea 

P3 


02  r* 

© t— 1 CO 

.2  00 

'H  c - 
^ 
o © 
O C3 
© C 

05  £}  01  ‘Zi 

SII“ 

tQ  +J  <2  l-P 

PS  ® . . 
§ feHK 
CQ  © • • 


01 
© 

S °p 
05 

£•§ 
c3 
P-1  PS 

© .s 

■— 1 ft 

S« 

5j 


PS 
a 

w 

PQ 

•O  C0  O 

g10  © 

Soft 
© g ra 

Ph  « 

O ft  ® 

®“s 

be 

£”«>% 


b 

'C 
PS 
c3 

M »jj 

'C  us  © 
O . S3 


- © 

*§§ 

CS 

.2  — 
’S  S 


di^i 
»j m z 5 


' W 

m 

§.s 


o 


c3  ft 

© d 

«02  | 

£ bjo  Ph 

Ctf  c2 

■g  o ® 


K ai  w 

0 OT  CQ 


og 


16 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [ Bulletin  156 


lOId  JOJ 

9J0y  jad  stun} 
-0H  pajimiijsg 


doao 
q[OBg  nxojj 
sjtdaaaa  innjoy 


G G 
© x 


o o 

© £ 

2 2 

£2 

a ^ 

03  >J 
© G2 
Sh 

G 

02  <© 

u 

CO  o 

G 02 
G G 
G G 
© 

LO  G 


}°Ict  paidnooo 
doao  s^bq  jo  • OJS[ 


> a 

c3 

5a 

'H 


5f=) 

a 


G 00 
G <£> 

S G 

O .3 

K 2* 


JOId  JO  OfvJ 


go© 
© m M 


PP 

G 

*2 

G ^ 


G-* 

a;  G 

0)  © 


U G 
G 0) 

a <d 

73 


G 

£ 2 

° 2 
72  G 

© « 
J-*  £ 
© O 
£ ** 

„ © 


G 

8*9 

-G  ^ O 

g g 5 

o 

o 

oq 

05 

oq 


= 1 

g a 

02  02 

u 2 

G 

^ G 
G ° 

^ 2 

O P 
O © 


02 

G 2 
O +-> 
O _ 
be  G 
O 
G 

w a 

© 2 
O o 


CM  05 
O 00 
CM 


o >>< 


Q O 


, 05 

g^ 

§ s 

SI 

2 G 
n © 


o 2 

G a 

O c$ 

X X 


o 

02 

a 

o 

<4-1 

o 

■si 

g a 

■4J 

02  02 

G 2 

O +-“ 

bB  P 
G 


I no 
o 

m © 


3* 

© 

© - 

bfl‘ 

- 

G 

G 


a 

O 5 


o 8 


£ G 

2 © 

o £ 

Sh 

*3  >» 

G © 

° 5 

G ^ 
© G5 

s ® 

O © 
gj  02 

o _ 


CO  LO  00  o 

to  (M  LO  00 

t>  CO  O CM 

N H i— I <M> 


M 

O 

o oo 
G ^ 

LO 


LO 


G 
G 
i G 

i 

G 

"2 

-4—>  i. 

a ih 

r*s  50 
bB 

< H - 
^ 02 
+-> 

.»S 


o .2 

fi  £} 

o ^ 


£ o 

G 


G G 
O 2 

(L,  a 

G 

© © 
^3 

O G 

r c 
o 


G +j 
© 02 

* g 
o S 

O 0) 


G G 

a 

>>  2 
f-i  G 
© © 
fc-4  G G 


.G  m 

<4-4  ° 

G 53 
© 

G G 


© O 
G ° 

m © 


2 -c 

atJ 

G 
G ® 
2 c 


G 


m 


bB  o- 

g- 


^ S 

5- 

G 2 

O U 

2 bB 
G!  fl 

3 

DQ  “ 
© 

G'  > 
2 G 
G G 
© n 
G 


U1 


m 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


17 


^ o> 

si 

a 

>>  c 
t;  o 
ft  2 
® ft 
C T! 


ft  o 


c n 


o 

^ O ft 
bX)  O 


ft  ft 
<!  ® 

^ 03 
22 

M ® 

o ^ 
s-  ft 

a;  m 

s-  rft  > 

II  2 

03  O 

a 

2 ft  r& 

> ® 

§ wi  § 

sf* 

•-2  3 03 


g 5 

H Q3 

pq 


<33  . 

gS© 

T*  ft  03 

E-1  a>  ft 


O 03  ft 

£ «= 
+)<C  ^ 

- ft  «2 

03  CO 


® as 


H <33  & 


8g 

3* 

<33 

Q3  £ 

C O 

£5 


« 03 
ft  S- 
ft  <33 

<33 


03  03 

23 

02 

03  u_, 

£ O 

. ® 
5-|  O 
03  rt 


ft 


P> 

O 

o ft 
° 22 

ft  02 


£ « 
° g o 

02  -ft 

£ 03  73 

o -r;  ft 

5h  % 03 

CD  4-) 


V o 


00  o 

t- 

ZD  CO 


H_,o 

o 

CO 

co" 


02  . 
•ft  'O 
fF3  03 

H 22 


02  . 

S'S 

E-  22 


ew  02 
O ft 
W) 

£ g 

p ft 
^ ft 
03 

tH  ft 


O O 
<cq  Ttj 

’ <m‘ 


Q3  ZD 

o ’T 

73 
ft  ft 
ft 


?_  K2 
ft 

t-3  02" 
03 


t> 

00 

up  - 
t-* 


03 


- ft 
S3  ® 
- 5-<  CQ 
5-0 
^073 
> O 
o SPh 
g a3 
ft  ® S3 


, ft  ® 
. >>  ft  > 

»SoB 

M 03~  2 

® Mft 

+j  ® S3  ►? 

ft  pq  I £ 


ft 
03 

• pq 

03 


ft  S'  ® 

°*o 

hH® 

® 

pq  £ ft 

ft  ft 

pq  ^ 5 


03  w 

£ ft 
o ft 

ft  H 

>> 

ft  02 
£»  ft 

S-  03 

ft 


^^73-S 

ft;  S3  uo 

E ® ft  „ 03 
£ ® S3  -2 

ft  ^ ft  s-  ^ 

pq  03  ft  o » 


S ^ 

® M © 


03 


o o g ® O 

OEOtCp 


rP  ^ 

” l>- 

23 

« 03 
3 oc 

05 


r*-<  ( 


O 


o 

S o 

ft  2 


„ 22 
23  O 
03  U 
ft 

ft  23 
O1  03 

m -r 


ft  TJH 

ft  <r> 

S . 

® ft 

5- 

® S 

° ft 

. 03 
O 03 

- bJO 
5- 

03  03 
03  > 

CQ  h 

03  'ft 
ft 

03  03 


« 03 
3 M) 

n ft 

Q ^0 

-M  ^ 

ft  ft 

E° 


3* 

ft  CO 
O T H 


°8 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


NOTES  ON  TABLE  II. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  every  one  of  the  47  plots  in  the 
garden  except  numbers  15,  16,  28,  and  39,  affords  an  illustra- 
tion of  either  companion  cropping,  succession  cropping,  or 
improvement  cropping  by  the  use  of  a leguminous  cover 
crop.  In  several  instances  two  of  these  plans  were  used.  The 
examples  of  each  plan  will  be  listed  under  its  appropriate 
heading. 


1. — Companion  Cropping . 


No.  of  I 
Plot 

Companion  Crop 

Panted  with 

Remarks 

| Lettuce  plants 

Chinese  Cabbage 

A good  combination 

7 & 8 | 

Cabbage 

((  it  it 

12 

Tomatoes 

it  it  a 

5 & 6 | 

seed 

Celery 

it  it  tt 

14  | 

Eggplant 

ti  it  it 

1,5  & 6|Spinach 

Peas 

it  it  tt 

5 & 6 | 

1 

Celery 

a it  a 

4 

“ 

Sweet  Corn 

ti  a a 

11  1 

1 

Tomatoes 

“ “ “ 

18 

;; i 

Cucumbers 

“ “ “ 

30  1 

Asparagus 

Not  a good  combination  except  the  first 
year. 

' 9 | 

Radishes 

Parsnips 

A good  combination. 

12 

“ 

Tomatoes 

2 

Kohlrabi 

Sweet  Corn 

Kohlrabi  should  have  been  planted 
earlier. 

18 

[String  Beans 

Cucumbers 

A good  combination. 

Fig.  II. — Same  Plots  as  in  Fig.  I.  Beans  Following  the  Cabbage  and  Lettuce. 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


19 


2. — Succession  Cropping. 


No.  of 
Plot 

Early  Crop 

Followed  by 

Remarks 

1 

Onion  sets 

Chinese  Cabbage 

With  good  results. 

3 

“ “ | String  Beans 

a a it 

i 

(Peas 

1 

Celeriac,  Endive 
and  Winter 
Radishes 

This  plan  worked  out  all  right  but  not 
much  sale  for  these  vegetables. 

4 & 5 | “ 

Celery,  Lettuce 
and  Spinach 

Gave  largest  gross 

returns  of  all. 

2 & 3 

| Sweet  Corn 

Spinach 

With  good  results. 

3 

1 “ “ 

Radishes 

“ “ “ 

26 

|Kale 

(<  “ 

4 i “ : _ 

Pumpkins 

With  poor  results 
suits  in  1914. 

this  year.  Good  re- 

00 

Cabbage 

String  Beans 

With  good  results. 

10 

| Carrots 

1 1 

| Fall  Planted 
Cabbage 

As  an  experiment, 
killed. 

Cabbage  all  winter 

11 

j Tomatoes 

Fall  Planted 
Cabbage 

As  an  experiment, 
killed. 

Cabbage  all  winter 

17 

I Beets 

String  Beans 

A good  plan  if  beets  are  sold  promptly. 

19 

i Spinach 

Beets 

With  good  results. 

20 

1 Cauliflower 

1 1 

Corn  and  Beans 

1 

Should  work  well 
corn  is  planted. 

if  early  variety  of 

21 

I String  Beans 

Spinach 

With  good  results. 

22  & 23 

Early  Irish  Potatoes  | 

1 “ 

One  of  the  best 
year’s  trial. 

combinations  in  two 

29 

String  Beans 

Kale 

With  good  results. 

38“ 

Old  Strawberry  Bed^ 

j Sweet  Corn 

I All  right  if  early 
I planted. 

• variety  of  corn  is 

39 

“ 1 

String  Beans 

|With  splendid  results. 

40 

1 “ 

| Cabbage 

Cabbage  should  be 

planted  promptly. 

41  & 42  I “ 

1 1 

I Tomatoes 
1 

With  fair  results, 
well  started. 

Must  have  plants 

43  & 44 

1 

Irish  Potatoes 

[With  fair  results, 
j iety  of  potatoes. 

Use  only  early  var- 

45 

1 

1 Cabbage 

|With  fair  results. 

46  & 47  | “ 

|Turnips  & Kale 

jwith  good  results. 

Fig.  III. — Plots  4 and  5.  Celery  and  Lettuce  Following  Peas  and  Spinach. 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15S 


3. — Improvement  Cropping. 

In  Plots  13,  14,  24,  25,  26,  27,  31,  32,  33,  34,  and  36  contain- 
ing bush  lima  beans,  eggplants,  peppers,  pole  lima  beans, 
sweet  corn,  tomatoes,  cabbage,  and  cauliflower  respectively, 
good  stands  of  crimson  clover,  to  be  plowed  under  next  spring, 
were  secured  from  seed  sown  the  last  week  in  July. 


Number  of  Days  the  Land  was  Occupied  by 
Various  Crops. 

The  third  column  which  gives  the  number  of  days  inter* 
vening  between  the  date  of  planting  and  last  sale  will  be 
helpful  in  making  companion  and  succession  cropping  plans. 
The  number  of  days  given  in  some  instances  is  larger  than 
would  be  necessary  where  the  entire  crop  may  be  removed  as 
soon  as  it  reaches  maturity.  This  was  impossible  here  be- 
cause of  the  limited  demands  of  our  market.  The  most  strik- 
ing examples  of  this  point  are  the  beets  in  Plots  17  and  19, 
the  carrots  in  Plot  10,  also  in  the  plots  of  parsnips,  kale, 
spinach,  potatoes,  carrots,  etc.,  which  matured  late  in  the 
fall.  An  examination  of  the  date  of  the  first  sale  as  given  in 
the  fifth  column  of  Table  I will  show  when  the  crop  might 
all  have  been  removed  in  such  cases  had  the  market  been 
large  enough  to  absorb  the  total  product  quickly. 


Fig.  IV. — Same  Plots  as  in  Fig.  III.  Lettuce  Ready  to  Cut. 


April,  1916] 


UNIVERSITY  FARM  GARDEN 


21 


Gross  Returns  from  Different  Areas. 

A summary  of  the  three  different  areas  into  which  the 
garden  may  be  divided  is  of  interest.  From  the  three-acre 
block,  containing  Plots  1 to  30  inclusive,  which  had  been  in 
vegetables  the  longest,  the  total  sales  were  $1,183.77,  or  at 
an  average  rate  of  $398.57  per  acre.  From  the  block  of  .6 
acres,  containing  Plotk  31  to  36  inclusive,  the  total  receipts 
were  $131.34,  or  at  the  rate  of  $218.90  per  acre.  From  the 
1.1  acres  following  the  two-year-old  strawberry  bed,  con- 
taining Plots  37  to  47  inclusive,  the  total  receipts  were  $109.42, 
or  at  the  average  rate  of  $99.47  per  acre.  The  total  sales  from 
the  whole  garden  were  $1,467.99  or  at  the  rate  of  $312.33  per 
acre.  It  is  interesting  to  note  at  this  point  that  the  average 
returns  per  acre  for  the  season  of  1913  were  $267.04  and  1914 
$247.09  per  acre.  The  average  gross  receipts  from  the  garden 
in  1913,  1914  and  1915  were  $275.48  per  acre.  The  difference 
between  the  receipts  in  the  three  years  was  due  in  part  to 
the  varying  range  of  prices  from  year  to  year,  the  kind  of  a 
season  and  the  difference  in  the  quality  of  the  land  which 
was  farmed. 


A SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS  IN  1913,  1914  AND  1915. 

A summary  of  the  returns  from  each  crop  in  1915  to- 
gether with  the  average  yield  per  acre  and  the  average  returns 
per  acre  for  the  last  three  years  is  given  in  Table  III. 


22 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  156 


Tadi.e  III. — A Summary  of  Yields  and  Returns  in  1913,  191},  and  1915. 


O M ' 

a £S 

^ a m 
a 

> w f- 

£ ft  P 

tj  0«H 

Name  of  Crop 

Id  per  Acre 
1915 

Yield  per 
re,  1913-15 

Gross  Re- 
rns  per  Acre 
1915 

Gross  Re- 
rns  per  Acre, 
13-15 

.2  c 

>5  £ 
< 

<** 

17 

Beans — string, 

green  and  wax 

151  bu. 

192  bu. 

$138.07 

$177.00 

16 

Beans — pole  and 

bush  limas 

171  bu. 

138  bu. 

231.60 

208.63 

12 

Beets 

93.5  bu. 

| 1045  dz.  bun. 

* 

354.40 

257.13 

10  | 

Cabbage — early 

and  late 

[15382  lbs. 

14864  lbs. 

206.82 

273.44 

13 

Carrots 

t 

* 

315.15 

252.97 

1 

Celery 

2040  dz. 

1598  dz. 

763.70 

533.22 

22 

|Corn — sweet 

| 620  dz. 

j 621  dz. 

118.68 

94.59 

19 

Cucumbers 

1285  dz. 

[ 670  dz. 

240.30 

128.61 

2 

| Eggplant 

555  dz. 

1 888  dz. 

365.00 

462.73 

8 

Kale 

823  bu. 

791  bu. 

267.33 

369.56 

5 

[Lettuce 

9274  lbs. 

* 

440. 00§ 

378. 83§ 

6 

Onions  from  sets 

1468  dz.  bun. 

1175  dz.  bun. 

525.95 

370.95 

14 

[Onions  from  seed 

440  dz.  bun. 

233  dz.  bun. 

1 

315  bu. 

175  bu. 

407.60 

229.70 

23 

[Peas 

146  bu. 

71  bu. 

162.39 

91.23 

i 

Peppers 

234  dz. 

1 

29  V2  bu. 

* 

1 . 

4 bbls. 

382.40 

370.71 

9 

Spinach 

428  bu. 

282. 80§ 

288. 48§ 

4 

Tomatoes — early 

and  late 

370  bu. 

296  bu. 

424.40 

405.66 

Crops  Grown  but  Two  Years. 


3 

i l 

[Cauliflower 

1 

8264  lbs. 

1 

8145  lbs. 

408.98 

433.24 

11 

|Parsnips 

457  bu. 

366  bu. 

331.90 

269.39 

18 

Potatoes — Irish 

200  bu. 

215  bu. 

101.25 

154.88 

24 

Pumpkins 

2250  lbs. 

2605  lbs. 

22.50 

46.80 

15 

|Radishes 

1475  dz.  bun. 

1252  dz.  bun. 

245.50 

210.75 

20 

Squashes 

1 

180  dz. 
3310  lbs. 

t 

106.90 

124.00 

21 

Turnips 

1 

1 

1 

228  dz.  bun. 
40  bbls. 

30  bu. 

* 

129.80 

118.40 

*See  Table  IV,  Circular  17,  for  yields  of  1913,  1914. 

$See  Table  I. 

§These  figures  are  estimated  returns,  assuming  that  the -spinach  and  lettuce  were 
planted  in  a solid  block  with  rows  one  foot  apart. 
tSee  Table  II,  Circular  17,  for  yields  of  1914. 


Bulletin  157 


July,  19  16 


C °*efee.tsW  °' 


l^esit  Virginia  Unibersitp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN 

DEPARTMENT  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


A Good  Silo  Makes  a Modern  Cattle  Feeding  Shed  Complete. 


BY 

E.  W.  Sheets  and  G.  L.  Oliver 


Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  Qf  the  West  Virginia 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va.. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  M.URPHY.  .. Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S.  COOK,  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN.  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

fL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Sc 

GEORGE  W.  BURKE,  B.S 

ROBERT  SALTER,  M.Sc 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

* A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  H.  TUCKWILLER,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

C.  E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


...Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Consulting  Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Animal  Industry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

.In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


*In  co-operation  with  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


Silos  and  Silage 

By  E.  W.  SHEETS. 


INTRODUCTION. 

For  many  years  the  silo  has  been  successfully  used  on 
large  beef  and  dairy  cattle  farms  for  the  storage  of  the  corn 
crop  for  feeding  purposes  during  the  winter  months.  Not 
until  recent  years,  however,  has  the  need  for  a silo  become  so 
apparent  on  small  farms  carrying  from  ten  to  twenty-five  or 
more  mature  cattle  or  their  equivalent.  Evidence  that  the 
silo  is  essential  to  the  economical  production  of  milk,  beef, 
and  mutton  is  obtained  from  the  results  of  experiments  car- 
ried on  at  different  experiment  stations  and  from  the  thous- 
ands of  livestock  farmers  who  have  changed  from  the  old  to 
the  new  method  of  storing  and  feeding  their  corn  crops. 

ADVANTAGES  OF  SILAGE. 

Utilizes  Entire  Corn  Plant.  One  of  the  many  reasons 
why  the  silo  is  of  interest  to  West  Virginia  farmers  is  be- 
cause hay  has  become  so  high  in  price  that  corn  stalks  are  too 
valuable  to  lose.  When  harvested  for  silage  the  entire  corn 
plant  is  taken  from  the  field  at  a time  when  it  contains  ap- 
proximately its  greatest  food  value,  and  is  preserved  in  as 
nearly  the  green  state  as  possible.  Analyses  show  that  fully 
37  percent  of  the  digestible  nutrients  of  the  corn  plant  re- 
mains in  the  plant  after  removing  the  ear*,  and  when  pre- 
served and  fed  as  dry  stover  or  fodder  at  least  one-half  of 
this  amount,  or  20  percent  of  the  entire  food  value  of  the  corn 
plant,  is  lost  by  leaching  and  stalks  not  consumed  by  animals. 
The  percentage  of  loss  is  even  greater  where  shock  corn  or 
corn  stover  is  fed  to  young  cattle  or  sheep.  Good  silage 
properly  fed  is  practically  all  consumed,  thus  eliminating  the 
usual  waste. 

Provides  a Succulent  Feed.  Silage  is  the  cheapest  and 
most  palatable  form  in  which  a succulent  feed  can  be  pro- 
vided for  winter  use.  West  Virginia  is  noted  for  its  large 
acreage  of  bluegrass  pasture.  All  kinds  of  livestock  thrive 
upon  it  during  the  summer  months.  Silage,  being  a succulent 


Pennsylvania  State  College,  First  Annual  Report. 


4 W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15 1 

roughage,  in  a large  measure  serves  the  same  purpose  in  the 
winter  ration  that  bluegrass  pasture  does  in  the  summer 
ration. 

Is  Valuable  as  a Summer  Feed.  In  many  sections  of  the 
state  there  is  urgent  need  for  silage  to  tide  stock  over  the  dry 

season  of  August  and 
September,  when  pastures 
become  dry  and  parched. 

By  the  use  of  silage, 
animals  can  be  fed  until 
the  first  of  June  instead  of 
the  first  of  May,  and  by 
beginning  to  feed  in  the 
middle  of  September  in- 
stead of  at  the  first  of  No- 
vember it  is  evident  that 
pastures  would  be  greatly 
benefited  and  in  a few 
years  could  carry  much 
more  livestock  than  they 
can  at  the  present  time. 

Allows  Use  of  Cheap 
Concentrates  and  Rough- 

ages,  Silage  is  a succulent 
roughage  and  as  such  per- 
mits the  use  of  cottonseed 
meal,  which  at  the  present 
time  is  the  cheapest  source 
of  protein.  Owing  to  the 
Fig.  1.  Home-made  Stave  Silo.  physical  effect  upon  the 

animal  and  the  inconvenience  in  feeding,  cottonseed  meal 
cannot  be  so  successfully  fed  alone  with  any  of  the  other 
roughages. 

Owing  to  the  nature  and  feeding  value  of  silage,  cheap 
roughages  can  be  profitably  fed  with  it  to  wintering  animals. 
It  has  been  found  that  wheat  straw  and  cottonseed  meal,  when 
fed  with  silage,  are  superior  to  timothy  hay  fed  with  silage 
for  wintering  steers*.  The  cost  of  the  ration  is  materiallv 
reduced  by  feeding  silage  to  all  classes  of  livestock.  This 
reduction  is  due  to  its  low  cost,  nutritive  value,  and  beneficial 
effects  upon  the  utilization  of  the  remainder  of  the  ration  fed. 

Is  a Comparatively  Cheap  Feed.  The  claim  is  generally 
made  that  silage  is  a cheap  feed.  This,  however,  depends 
primarily  on  who  compiles  the  figures.  The  a<rronomv  de- 
partment of  a certain  institution  recently  gave  out  figure? 

♦West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  unpublished  data. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


5 


showing  the  profits  that  could  be  derived  from  growing  silage 
at  $6.00  to  $7.00  per  ton.  The  department  of  dairy  husban- 
dry of  the  same  institution  had  made  calculations  showing 
the  profits  to  be  derived  from  dairying,  silage  being  valued 
at  $2.50  per  ton. 

The  principal  factors  which  usually  control  the  cost  per 
ton  of  silage  are : first,  cost  of  raising  the  crop ; second,  cost 
of  putting  the  crop  into  the  silo  ; and  third,  yield  per  acre  of 
the  crop.  All  of  these  factors  are  considerably  influenced  by 
the  personal  capacity  of  the  farmer,  so  that  various  costs  are 
reported  under  very  similar  conditions.  Figures  compiled  by 
the  department  of  farm  management*  show  that  the  cost 
of  producing  silage  in  different  parts  of  the  state  varies  from 
$23.43  to  $35.60  per  acre,  while  the  yields  vary  from  10  to 

10.3  tons  per  acre.  The  cost  of  producing  timothy  or  mixed 
hay  varies  from  $7.04  to  $8.35  per  acre,  with  a yield  of  1.2  to 

1.3  tons.  Table  I gives  the  average  yield  of  silage  and  mixed 
hay,  and  the  average  cost  of  growing  and  harvesting  the  crops. 


TABLE  I. — Comparative  Yield  and  Cost  of  Hay  and  Silage. 


Average  cost  per  acre  to  grow  and  harvest 

Average  cost  per  ton  to  grow  and  harvest 

Silage 

Hay 

Silage,  yield  per  acre 
10.15  tons 

Hay,  yield  per  acre 
1.25  tons 

1 

$29.51 

$7.70 

$2.91 

$6.16 

One  ton  of  mixed  hay  is  equal  in  feeding  value  to  three 
tons  of  silage.  It  is  evident  that  while  silage  is  a compara- 
tively cheap  feed,  its  greatest  value  is  that  it  reduces  to  one- 
third  the  crop  land  necessary  to  feed  or  winter  a given  number 
of  animals.  The  silo  thus  makes  it  possible,  on  the  average, 
to  put  one-third  of  the  present  crop  land  in  corn,  one-third  in 
soybeans  or  other  crop  for  roughage,  and  to  seed  the  other 
third  of  the  roughest  land  now  cultivated  to  permanent  pas- 
ture, and  at  the  same  time  to  greatly  increase  the  number  of 
animals  that  can  be  wintered.  By  using  only  the  more  desir- 
able land  for  crops  and  by  carefully  saving  and  applying  the 
manure  from  the  animals,  the  yield  yer  acre  of  forage  can  be 
greatly  increased. 

More  Livestock  Can  be  Kept.  The  silo  makes  it  possible 
to  put  West  Virginia  agriculture  on  a sounder  financial  basis. 
Reports  compiled  by  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Station*  show  that,  on  the  average,  the  farms  of  the 

♦West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  unpublished  data. 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


state  which  yield  the  largest  incomes  are  those  that  maintain 
a relatively  large  number  of  livestock.  It  is  evident,  however, 
that  there  are  many  farms  in  the  state  where  more  livestock 
is  needed,  and  the  silo  makes  the  keeping  of  more  livestock 
possible. 

ESSENTIAL  FEATURES  OF  A GOOD  SILO. 


After  deciding  to  build  a silo,  the  question  which  puzzles 
many  people  is,  “What  type  of  silo  should  I build?”  There 

probably  is  no  one  type  of 
silo  which  is  equally  well 
adapted  to  local  conditions 
in  all  sections  of  the  state. 
The  factors  which  usually 
determine  the  type  of  silo 
to  be  constructed  on  any 
farm  are : initial  cost,  avail- 
ability of  material,  dura- 
bility, and  ease  and  quick- 
ness of  construction.  Since 
all  of  these  factors  must 
necessarily  be  considered 
in  each  individual  case  it 
is  impossible  to  recom- 
mend any  one  type  of  silo 
which  will  suit  all  condi- 
tions. There  are,  however, 
some  features  in  the  con- 
struction of  all  silos  with- 
out which  silage  will  not 
keep  in  perfect  condition 
or  otherwise  be  satisfac- 
tory. These  should  be  con- 
sidered before  deciding  to 
Fig.  2. — Home-made  Concrete  Silo.  build  any  one  type. 


Cost.  The  silo  which  will  give  the  most  and  best  service 
for  the  least  money  is,  as  a rule,  the  kind  to  build.  While  first 
cost  is  usually  considered  along  with  the  cost  of  upkeep  and 
the  period  of  usefulness,  there  are  no  doubt  cases  where  initial 
cost  will  be  the  deciding  factor.  In  such  cases  it  would  seem 
to  be  the  best  policy  to  build  a silo  with  the  least  possible 
outlay  of  money,  even  though  its  period  of  usefulness  were 
comparatively  short.  In  many  instances  it  has  been  possible  for 
individuals  to  build  a silo  of  the  home-made  type  where  the 
construction  of  a more  costly  type  was  practically  impossible. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


7 


Efficiency.  There  is  one  fundamental  principle  which 
must  be  observed  in  silage  making.  The  green  corn  must 
be  preserved  in  a form  that  will  exclude  all  air.  The  silo  with 
a wall  most  nearly  airtight  will  keep  silage  best.  It  has  been 
proved  that  practically  airtight  walls  can  be  constructed  from 
a variety  of  materials.  The  juice  of  the  green  corn  or  the 
water  added  aids  in  this  exclusion  of  air  and  so  the  wall 
should  be  constructed  in  such  a way  as  to  make  it  not 
only  airtight  but  also  watertight.  If  the  wall  is  construct- 
ed of  materials  which  absorb  large  quantities  of  moisture  from 
the  silage  it  will  allow  mold  to  develop  around  it.  Walls  of 
concrete  or  plastered  silos  are  oftentimes  objectionable  for  this 
reason,  unless  treated  with  a cement  wash,  coal  tar,  or  other 
preparation. 

Durability.  The  wall  should  not  only  be  efficient  in 
keeping  silage  but  should  be  durable.  Any  material  used  in 
the  construction  of  a silo  is  expensive,  so  that  the  material 
which  will  last  over  the  longest  period  of  years  and  give 
satisfaction,  when  permanency  is  desired,  will  be  cheapest  in 
the  end,  even  though  the  first  cost  will  be  slightly  greater. 

Convenience.  The  above-ground  type  of  silo  is  more  con- 
venient than  the  below-ground  type.  It  is  much  easier  to 
throw  silage  down  than  to  draw  it  up.  The  continuous  door 
is  also  more  convenient  that  the  intermittent  door,  since  the 
opening  is  always  nearer  the  level  of  the  silage.  It  is  not  de- 
sirable, as  a rule,  to  go  more  than  two  or  three  feet  below 
ground  or  to  extend  more  than  18  feet  in  diameter,  for  con- 
venience. 

Attractiveness.  Any  properly  constructed  silo  adds  to 
the  attractiveness  of  a farm  and  enhances  its  value.  Like 
other  farm  buildings,  if  improperly  or  poorly  constructed,  it 
soon  becomes  dilapidated,  is  an  eye-sore  and  a sign  of  shift- 
lessness, and  shows  poor  judgment  on  the  part  of  the  owner. 
On  the  other  hand,  a silo  which  will  be  attractive  and  remain 
so  with  the  least  possible  expense  and  effort  is  one  that  will 
be  a thing  of  beauty  and  a satisfaction  to  its  owner. 

Shape.  The  only  shape  of  silo  to  be  recommended  is  a 
round  one,  this  form  being  cheapest,  most  durable,  and  satis- 
factory for  keeping  the  silage.  The  wall  should  be  perpen- 
dicular and  smooth  on  the  inside  so  that  silage  will  not  ad- 
here to  it,  and  in  order  to  permit  even  settling  and  packing 
without  leaving  air  pockets  in  the  outer  edge  of  the  silage. 


8 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


Floor.  A cement  floor  in  a silo  is  not  necessary  under 
ordinary  clay  soil  conditions,  in  fact  it  is  not  desirable.  Where 
there  is  danger  of  seepage  into  the  silo,  or  where  the  soil  is 
very  gravelly  or  sandy  so  that  the  drainage  from  the  silo  will 
be  very  rapid,  it  is  always  desirable  to  lay  a floor. 

Roof.  A roof  is  not  essential.  It  adds  greatly,  however, 
to  the  looks  of  the  silo,  giving  it  a more  finished  appearance. 
A roof  probably  helps  to  decrease  freezing  and  adds  to  the 
comfort  of  the  feeder  during  stormy  weather. 

Chute.  A chute  is  necessary  to  prevent  waste  of  silage 
in  throwing  it  from  the  top  of  the  silo.  It  also  adds  greatly 
to  the  convenience  in  feeding  when  the  silo  is  near  the  barn, 
as  it  should  be  in  most  cases. 


DIMENSIONS  OF  SILO  TO  BUILD. 

Diameter.  The  inquiry  is  often  made,  “What  size  silo 
should  I build?”  The  diameter  depends  upon  the  number  and 

class  of  animals  to  be 
fed.  To  keep  silage  per- 
fectly fresh,  two  to  three 
inches  should  be  remov- 
ed daily  from  the  entire 
surface  during  warm 
weather,  and  from  one 
to  two  inches  during 
cold  weather.  The  depth 
of  silage  to  be  removed 
daily,  however,  will  de- 
pend very  largely  upon 
the  care  used  in  taking 
the  silage  out.  The  sur- 
face in  all  cases  should 
be  left  smooth,  firm,  and 
level.  It  is  not  consid- 
ered practical  to  build  a 
silo  for  less  than  10  to> 
12  head  of  mature  cattle, 
or  their  equivalent,  as 
the  amount  which  will 
be  removed  daily  is  too 
small  to  keep  the  silage 
in  perfect  condition.  A mistake  frequently  made  and  a com- 
mon cause  of  poor  silage  is  building  a silo  too  large  in  dia- 
meter for  the  number  of  livestock  fed. 


Fig.  3. — Patent  Stave  Silo. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  animals  that 
may  be  fed  from  silos  of  various  diameters  by  removing  an 
average  of  two  inches  per  day  when  various  quantities  are  fed : 

TABLE  II. — Relation  of  Herd  to  Diameter  of  Silo. 


Diameter 

Pounds 

Removed 

Daily 

plumber  of  Animals  Fed  Various  Quantities  per  Head  per  Day 

35  lbs. 

30  lbs. 

25  lbs. 

20  lbs. 

15  lbs. 

10  lbs. 

5 lbs. 

8 

320 

9 

10 

12 

16 

21 

32 

64 

10 

523 

15 

17 

21 

26 

35 

52 

105 

12 

754 

21 

25 

30 

38 

50 

75 

151 

14 

1030 

29 

34 

41 

51 

69 

103 

206 

16 

1340 

38 

44 

53 

67 

88 

134 

268 

18 

1685 

48 

56 

67 

84 

112 

168 

337 

20 

2100 

60 

70 

84 

105 

140 

210 

420 

The  amount  of  silage  fed  varies  with  the  class  of  animals 
to  which  it  is  fed.  Silage  should  not  comprise  the  only  rough- 
age  fed  to  livestock.  Some  dry  roughage  such  as  hay  or 
straw,  depending  upon  the  class  of  animals,  should  be  fed  with 
it.  The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  animals  that 
may  be  fed  by  removing  an  average  of  two  inches  per  day 
from  a silo  of  a given  diameter,  when  the  amounts  usually 
recommended  are  fed: 

TABLE  III. — Amounts  of  Silage  to  Feed  Different  Kinds  of  Animals. 


Kind  of  Stock 

Pounds 
to  be  Fed 

Number  of  Animals  2 Inches  per  Day  will  Feed  from  a 
Silo  of  a Given  Diameter 

Daily 

8 ft. 

10  ft. 

12  ft. 

14  ft. 

16  ft. 

18  ft. 

20  ft. 

Dairy  Cows  

35 

9 

15 

21 

29 

38 

48 

60 

Beef  Cows  

35 

9 

15 

21 

29 

38 

48 

60 

Wintering  Steers  

2 yrs.  old 

30 

10 

17 

25 

34 

44 

56 

70 

1 yr.  old 

25 

12 

21 

30 

41 

54 

67 

84 

Calves  

18 

17 

29 

42 

57 

74 

93 

116 

Breeding  Ewes  

3 

106 

174 

251 

343 

446 

562 

700 

Fattening  Sheep  

3 

106 

174 

251 

343 

446 

562 

700 

Fattening  Lambs  

i 

2 

160 

261 

377 

515 

670 

842 

1050 

Silage  may  be  fed  in  very  limited  amounts  to  horses  and 
mules,  if  only  good  silage,  fed  with  great  care,  is  used.  Ser- 
ious results,  however,  are  frequently  reported  when  apparent- 
ly the  best  of  care  has  been  used. 


10 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


Height.  The  height  of  silo  to  build  depends  upon  the 
length  of  the  feeding  period.  For  wintering  or  growing  ani- 
mals a filled  silo  30  feet  in  height  is  sufficient  in  most  cases, 
as  this  will  allow  the  feeding  of  two  inches  per  day  for  140  to 
150  days,  which  is  the  usual  length  of  the  feeding  period.  A 
silo  of  greater  height  is  recommended  for  feeding  dairy  cows 
or  other  animals  where  a longer  feeding  period  is  desirable. 

Feeding  Capacity.  Knowing  the  amount  of  silage  to  be 
fed  daily  and  the  length  of  the  feeding  period,  one  can  figure 
out  the  amount  of  silage  which  will  be  needed  for  the  entire 
herd  for  the  year.  Practice  has  shown  that  the  amount  which 
can  be  fed  from  a silo  is  at  least  10  percent  less  than  the 
amount  contained  in  it  after  settling,  that  is  at  the  beginning 
of  the  feeding  period.  This  loss  usually  consists  of  spoiled 
silage,  waste,  and  shrinkage.  The  following  table  is  not  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  the  capacities  of  silos  of  different  dimen- 
sions, but  shows  the  amount  of  silage  which  can  usually  be 
fed  from  a silo  of  a given  diameter,  with  different  depths  of 
silage  after  settling: 

TABLE  IV. — Feeding  Capacity  of  Silos. 


Depth  in  Feet 
of  Silage 
After  Settling 


24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

36 

38 

40 

42 

44 

46 

48 


Amount  in  Tons  which  can  be  Fed  from  a Silo  Having  an  Inside  Diameter  of 


8 ft. 

10  ft. 

12  ft. 

14  ft. 

15  ft. 

16  ft. 

18  ft. 

20  ft. 

20 

31 

44 

23 

34 

50 

25 

38 

55 

75 

29 

42 

60 

82 

95 

| 

67 

90 

104 

118 

72 

98 

113 

129 

78 

107 

122 

140 

176 

115 

132 

150 

191 

235 

142 

162 

205 

253 

153 

174 

221 

272 

186 

236 

291 

252 

311 

331 

TYPES  OF  SILOS  IN  WEST  VIRGINIA. 


Owing  to  the  many  types  of  silos  used  in  the  state  only 
those  most  commonly  used  and  of  approved  types  will  be  dis- 
cussed at  any  length.  The  types  of  home-made  silos  which 
are  recommended  are  the  wooden-hoop  stave  silo,  the  wooden- 
hoop  plastered  silo,  and  the  concrete  silo ; the  patent  silos 
recommended  are  stave  and  hollow  tile  block.  Other  types  of 
both  home-made  and  patent  silos,  however,  have  been  used 
and  in  many  instances  gave  entire  satisfaction. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


11 


HOME-MADE  SILOS. 

Wooden-Hoop  Stave  Silo.  Perhaps  the  first  type  of  home- 
made silo  to  be  built  in  the  state  was  the  wooden-hoop  stave 
silo.  The  earlier  silos  of  this  type  were  built  somewhat  on 
the  same  order  as  those  of  the  present  day,  although  rather 
plain  in  structure.  When  the  modern  wooden-hoop  stave  silo 
is  constructed  of  tongued  and  grooved  material  of  good  qual- 
ity a good  silo  at  a very  low  cost  can  be  built.  Including 
roof  and  foundation  the  average  cost  complete  of  a silo  of 
this  type  varies  somewhat  in  different  parts  of  the  state,  but 
on  the  average  a 60-ton  silo  will  cost  from  $1.00  to  $2.00  per 
ton  capacity,  depending  somewhat  upon  the  availability  of 
material  and  the  cost  of  labor.  The  cost  per  ton  capacity 
decreases  as  the  size  increases. 

Wooden-Hoop  Plastered  Silo.  The  wooden-hoop  plaster- 
ed silo  is  constructed  very  similarly  to  that  of  the  wooden- 
hoop  stave  silo,  having  in  addition  a coat  of  plaster  on  the 
inside.  One  advantage  of  the  wooden-hoop  plastered  silo  is 
that  rough  and  somewhat  cheaper  lumber  can  be  used  in  its 
construction.  The  cost  of  this  type  of  silo  is  about  the  same 
as  that  of  the  wooden-hoop  stave  silo. 

The  chief  advantages  of  the  wooden-hoop  stave  and 
plastered  types  of  silos  are  low  initial  cost  and  availability 
of  material  in  most  agricultural  communities.  These  silos 
are  efficient  and  will  last  under  ordinary  conditions  from  six 
to  fifteen  years,  depending  upon  construction  and  material 
used.  Where  capital  is  limited,  material  readily  available  and 
labor  cheap,  a silo  of  either  of  these  types  is  recommended. 

Concrete  Silo.  The  concrete  silo  has  the  advantage  of 
other  types  in  permanency  and  stability.  A well-constructed 
concrete  silo  will  last  indefinitely.  For  the  man  with  suffi- 
cient capital  who  wants  a silo  for  a long  period  of  years,  and 
who  can  obtain  materials  for  concrete  at  a reasonable  cost, 
the  building  of  a concrete  silo  is  advisable.  The  necessary 
repairs  are  reduced  to  a minimum,  the  first  expense  being 
practically  the  only  expense.  The  chief  objections  to  the 
concrete  silo  are  its  cost  and  its  somewhat  difficult  construc- 
tion. On  the  average,  silos  of  this  type  will  cost  from  $2.00 
to  $4.00  per  ton  capacity,  depending  upon  the  size  of  the  silo, 
the  availability  of  materials,  the  cost  of  forms,  and  the  cost 
of  labor. 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


Concrete  Block  and  Brick  Silos.  These  silos  have  been 
used  to  some  extent  and  are  entirely  satisfactory  when  prop- 
erly constructed.  They  are,  however,  expensive  and  have  no 
advantages  to  recommend  them  over  the  concrete  silo. 

PATENT  SILOS. 

Stave  Silo.  Among  the  patent  silos  most  commonly  used 
is  the  stave  silo.  Silos  of  this  type  have  become  very  popular 
in  recent  years  because  of  their  comparative  cheapness,  and 
ease  and  quickness  of  construction.  Generally  speaking  the 
stave  silo  excels  in  these  particulars,  although  there  are  many 
sections  of  the  state  where  lumber  or  sand  and  gravel  may  be 
obtained  at  a nominal  cost,  and  where  the  price  of  the  stave 
silo  is  excessive.  Under  such  conditions  the  home-made  stave 
silo,  the  plastered  silo,  or  even  the  concrete  silo  may  be  con- 
siderably cheaper  and  equal- 
ly as  satisfactory.  Silos  of 
this  type  will  cost  from  $2.00 
to  $3.50  per  ton  capacity,  de- 
pending upon  the  make  and 
the  material  used. 

Tile  Silo.  A silo  con- 
structed of  hollow  tile 
blocks  reinforced  with  steel 
is  finding  a place  on  many 
farms.  The  air  space  un- 
doubtedly provides  some 
protection  against  the  freez- 
ing of  the  silage,  although 
this  is  of  relatively  little  im- 
portance. It  is  apparently 
durable  when  properly  con- 
structed, but  owing  to  its 
rather  recent  introduction  it 
is  difficult  to  say  how  it 
compares  in  durability  with 
other  types.  If  good  tiles 
adapted  for  the  purpose  can 
there  is  no  reason  why  this 
silo  should  not  come  into  more  general  use.  The  cost  of  a 
silo  of  this  type  varies  from  $3.00  to  $5.00  per  ton  capacity. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


13 


LOCATING  THE  SILO, 

After  having  decided  to  build  a silo  of  a definite  size  and 
type,  its  location  is  of  considerable  importance.  If  conven- 
ient, the  silo  should  be  located  so  as  to  shut  off  as  little  light 
from  the  barn  as  possible.  The  location  of  the  barn,  the  ap- 
proach to  the  proposed  silo  and  other  conditions  being  equal, 
the  silo  should  be  located  on  the  north  side.  As  a rule  it 
■should  be  so  near  the  barn  that  the  chute  will  open  directly 
into  the  interior  as  near  the  place  where  it  is  to  be  fed  as 
possible. 

THE  MAKING  AND  FEEDING  OF  SILAGE. 

The  making  and  feeding  of  silage  to  different  kinds  of 
livestock  will  be  discussed  in  a separate  publication,  which 
may  be  secured  free  upon  request  to  the  Director  of  the  West 
Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


Building  Instructions  for  Home-Made  Silos 

By  G.  L.  OLIVER, 

In  co-operation  with  U.  S.  Dept,  of  Agriculture. 


Owing  to  the  fact  that  complete  plans  for  constructing 
patent  silos  are  provided  by  the  manufacturers,  building  plansr 
including  bill  of  materials,  are  provided  in  this  bulletin  only 
for  silos  of  the  home-made  type.  The  demand  for  more  de- 
tailed information  concerning  the  construction  of  silos  of  this- 
type  has  made  it  necessary  to  rewrite  Circular  8 of  the  West 
Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  by  W.  D.  Zinn,. 
which  gave  instructions  for  building  wooden-hoop  silos.. 
Acknowledgement  is  made  to  Mr.  Zinn  for  his  helpful  sug- 
gestions in  the  preparation  of  these  plans. 

STAVE  AND  PLASTERED  SILO. 


Table  V gives  the  approximate  bill  of  materials  for  silos 
of  different  dimensions,  including  foundations.  It  does  not,. 

however,  include  a bill 
of  materials  for  the 
roof. 


Stave 
Item*  A. 

necessary  it 
if  a planing 


Material — 

While  not 
is  advisable 
mill  is  con- 


Fig.  5. — Home-made  Silos  on  Farm  of 
W.  D.  Zinn  That  Have  Kept  Silage  for 
Fourteen  Years. 


vement,  to  have  the  ma- 
terial for  staves  edged 
and  planed  on  one  side. 
Any  lumber  which  is 
sound  and  straight  can 
be  used  for  this  purpose. 
Although  objectionable 
from  the  standpoint  of 
appearance,  knotty  lum- 
ber, if  sound,  may  be 
used  for  the  plastered 
silo.  If  flooring  instead 
of  the  material  above 
is  to  be  used  for  staves,, 
be  sure  that  it  is  of  good 


*For  the  amounts  of  materials  specified  in  items  A to  I reference  should  be- 
made  to  Table  V. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


15 


quality  and  that  it  contains  no  holes  of  any  kind.  Use  the 
smooth  surface  on  the  inside.  Add  about  one-third  to  the  bill 
for  tongue  and  groove. 

Hoop  Material — Item  B.  In  determining  the  length  of 
material  to  be  used  for  making  hoops,  find  the  circumference 
of  the  proposed  hoop  and  match  the  length  most  economically. 
It  is  well  to  have  this  material  cut  24  of  an  inch  thick  and 
afterwards  dressed  to  inch  if  a planer  is  convenient.  Other- 
wise insist  upon  having  the  material  uniform,  and  not  thicker 
than  ^4  inch.  A thickness  of  Y inch  *s  sufficiently  strong,  as 
three  thicknesses  or  layers  will  be  used.  Any  pliable  wood 
such  as  second-growth  oak,  white  oak  preferred,  or  elm  may 
be  used.  Beveled  weatherboarding  of  good  grade  or  No.  1 
^4-inch  yellow  pine  ceiling  may  be  used  for  the  construction 
of  hoops  with  good  results. 

Door  Material — Item  C.  The  material  for  the  doors 
should  be  No.  1 yellow  pine  flooring  with  3%  inch  face. 

Plastering  Laths — Item  D.  These  should  be  made  from 
material  that  will  bend  easily.  Ordinary  plastering  laths  4 
feet  long  are  best.  If  somewhat  dry  when  ready  to  use,  soak 
in  water.  Sometimes  chicken  wire  and  metal  laths  are  used 
but  they  are  more  expensive  and  not  so  satisfactory  as  wooden 
laths. 

Door  Facing — Item  E.  Quarter  round  may  be  used,  but 
if  it  is  not  easily  secured,  1 x 2-inch  planed  boards  will 
answer,  or  a piece  of  flooring  may  be  split  to  the  desired  size. 

Cement — Item  F.  The  quantity  of  cement  given  is  for 
the  plastering  and  is  mixed  1 part  cement,  3 parts  clean,  sharp 
sand,  and  10  percent  screened,  hydrated  lime.  A 1 part  ce- 
ment, 3 parts  sand,  5 parts  crushed  stone  concrete  mixture  is 
used  for  the  foundation.  By  using  large  stones  in  the  bot- 
tom of  the  foundation  the  quantity  of  cement  can  be  slightly 
reduced. 

Sand — Item  G.  The  sand  includes  the  quantity  required 
for  plaster  as  well  as  that  to  be  used  in  the  foundation.  This 
sand  must  be  screened,  clean,  and  sharp. 

Stone — Item  H.  It  is  desirable  to  have  this  material 
broken  up  in  pieces  from  1 to  2 inches  in  diameter. 

Anchor  Irons — Item  I.  These  can  be  made  from  old 
wagon  tires,  and  should  be  about  4 feet  long,  with  one  end 
turned  up  about  2 inches  to  a right  angle,  so  that  they  will 
not  pull  out  of  the  concrete.  The  opposite  end  should  have 
two  ^2-inch  holes  punched  or  drilled,  one  2 inches  and  the 
other  24  inches  from  the  end  (see  Fig.  7). 


TABLE  V. — Approximate  Bill  of  Materials  for  Constructing  Home-made  Silos  of  Different  Dimensions.1 


16  W.  VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


m 

73 

<x> 

"eS 

§ 

feet  of  I x 4"  boards 

m 

'a 

S-i 

ai 

o 

* 

»: 

CQ 

<v 

<X> 

St— 1 

feet  of  matched  t.  and  g.  flooring 

plastering  laths 

feet  quarter  round 

-t-j 

a 

0) 

5 
0) 
o 

in 

b£ 

c3 

6 

cubic  yards  sand 

cubic  yards  stone 

pieces  of  old  wagon  tire 

pounds  nails,  4,  6,  8,  and  10  d. 

SU01 8TT 

88  x 91 

00 

o 

so 

rH 

TJH 

OO 

00 

o 

03 

o 

o 

LO 

03 

'if 

so 

tr- 

ee 

CO 

LO 

so 

o 

00 

suo}  S6 
oexsi 

O 

SO 

CO 

7— 1 

00 

so 

c— 

O 

OS 

i— 1 

O 

o 

03 

03 

o 

so 

CO 

CO 

C- 

so 

LO 

t- 

snoi  2,01 
98  x fl 

03 

1—1 

LO 

tH 

so 
i o 
00 

OO 

03 

03 

o 

LO 

LO 

03 

03 

t- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

so 

o 

t- 

suo; ZS 
08  x fl 

o 

so 

03 

rH 

so 

CO 

c- 

o 

as 

l—i 

O 

LO 

o 

03 

o 

so 

rH 

CO 

CO 

rH 

so 

LO  ! 
SO 

suo;  2,9 
88  x 81 

03 

LO 

T— 1 

rH 

o 

oo 

so 

o 

03 

o 

o 

OS 

so 

as 

03 

CO 

at 

CO 

LO 

o 

so 

suo;  09 
08  x 81 

Ij 

rH  j 

o 

so 

o 

as 

i—i 

o 

LO 

t- 

1—1 

o 

so 

as 

03 

j CO 

a* 

CO 

LO 

o 

so 

suo;  gg 
88  x 81 

oo 

o 

o 

o 

§1 

so 

t- 

1 

o 

LO 

so  I 
1— 1 

so 

LO 

00 

03 

5S*i 

03 

CO 

LO  ' 

o 

so 

SUO} ff 

fZ  x Zl 

SC’ 

oo 

o 

03 
LO  | 

03 

LO 

rH 

o 

o 

'Sf 
1— t 

00 

SC 

03 

03 

CO 

LO 

LO 

LO 

sno;  zf 
08X01 

o 

o 

OS 

so 

t- 

LO 

o 

as 

i—i 

o 

LO 

Tf 

rH 

o 

so 

CO 

03 

# 

03 

00 

CO 

LO 

o 

LO 

suoi 88 
88  x 0T 

o 

00 

o 

03  j 
LO  1 

so 

r- 

i—i 

O 

LO 

CO 

t-H 

so 

LO 

03 

03 

03 

oc 

CO 

LO 

LO 

tH 

snoi is 
fZ  x 01 

o 

03 

t- 

oo 

03 

LO 

s 

rH 

rH 

oo 

-sf 

rH 

cq 

03  1 

00 

CO 

LO 

o 

suoi  68 
08X8 

o 

03 

c— 

LO  1 

O 

as 

o 

c- 

03 

rH 

o 

so 

00 

rH 

03 

CO 

O 

Tf 

suoi 08 
fZ  x 8 

so 

t— 

LO 

t- 

SO 

CO 

03 

LO 

l-H 

o 

LO 

OS 

00 

tH 

t— 

03 

03 

CO 

o 

Maxi 

< 

PQ 

O 

o 

H 

CL 

o 

E 

- 

t”5 

The  capacity  given  is  the  usual  amount  which  may  be  fed  from  a silo  of  given  dimensions. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


17 


Foundation.  The  first  step  to  be  taken  up  is  the  con- 
struction of  the  foundation.  Having  determined  the  diameter 
of  the  silo,  the  interior  diameter  of  the  foundation  is  laid  off 
so  that  it  will  be  4 inches  smaller 
than  the  inside  diameter  of  the 
silo,  the  object  being  to  have  the 
silo  rest  near  the  inner  edge  of  the 
foundation  rather  than  in  the  mid- 
dle or  on  the  outer  edge.  The 
foundation  is  marked  off  by  driv- 
ing a stake  in  the  ground  at  the 
center  of  the  proposed  silo.  To 
this  is  fastened,  with  a 12-penny  nail,  one  end  of  a straight 
strip  long  enough  to  reach  from  the  stake  to  the  outer  edge 
of  the  foundation  (see  Fig.  6).  The  positions  of  the  inner 


Fig.  6 — Method  of  Marking 
Off  the  Foundation. 


Fig.  7. — Anchor  Irons  Set  in  Foundation. 


and  outer  edges  of  the  foundation  wall,  which  are  12  inches 
apart,  are  marked  on  this  strip,  and  two  short,  straight-edged 
pieces  are  nailed  on  at  right  angles  to  the  strip  at  these  points. 
By  keeping  the  strip  level  and  using  sliding  markers  two 
circles  can  be  laid  off  on  the  ground,  which  will  correspond  to 
the  inner  and  outer  edges  of  the  foundation.  The  soil  can  be 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


taken  from  between  these  lines  to  a depth  of  two  feet,  or  be- 
low the  frost  line.  Care  should  be  taken  that  the  walls  of  the 
excavation  are  perpendicular,  as  they  will  answer  as  a form  for 
the  concrete,  which  is  mixed  and  poured  in  to  the  level  of  the 
ground.  Place  the  anchor  irons  in  the  foundation  while  it  is 
being  made  so  that  they  will  come  on  the  outside  of  the  hoop 
(see  Fig.  7),  and  have  the  upper  end  of  the  anchor  30  inches 
from  the  proposed  top  of  the  foundation.  When  the  cement  has 
set,  drive  stakes  in  between  the  concrete  and  the  earth  about 
2 feet  apart  on  the  inner  and  outer  sides  of  the  foundation,  and 
tie  together  with  strips  across  the  top.  Complete  the  con- 
struction of  the  form  by  bending  ^-inch  boards  around  and 
nailing  to  the  stakes.  Fill  with  the  concrete  mixture  and 
smooth  off.  The  outer  edge  should  be  about  1 inch  lower 
than  the  inner  edge. 


Fig.  8. — When  the  Uprights  are  Braced  This  Form  will  be  Ready 
for  Making  the  Hoops. 


Construction  of  Hoops.  The  hoops  are  most  easily  made 
on  a circular  form  about  6 or  7 feet  high.  The  diameter  of  the 
form  is  to  be  made  2 to  4 inches  greater  than  that  of  the  in- 
side diameter  of  the  silo,  depending  upon  whether  a flooring 
or  plastered  wall  is  to  be  constructed. 

With  a 10-penny  nail,  fasten  one  end  of  a strip  to  a stake 
which  has  been  driven  in  level  ground.  From  this  nail  measure 
the  radius  or  one-half  the  diameter  of  the  form  and  saw  off 
the  strip  at  this  point.  Drive  an  18-inch  stake  into  the  ground 
about  1 inch  toward  the  center  from  the  end  of  the  strip. 
From  this  point  sight  across  the  center  stake  and  similarly 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


19 


locate  another  stake.  Continue  this  operation  so  that  a circle 
will  be  formed  with  an  even  number  of  stakes  about  2 feet 
apart.  Fasten  in  an  upright  position  to  the  stakes  of  the 
-circle  straight-edged  2 x 4’s  about  6 feet  long,  so  that  their 
outer  edges  will  be  even  with  the  end  of  the  strip.  These 
should  be  plumbed  before  fastening.  When  this  has  been 
■completed  tie  the  opposite  2 x4  uprights  across  the  center 
with  strips  which  are  the  exact  length  of  the  diameter  of  the 
form.  Nail  the  tie  pieces  together  in  the  center  (see  Fig.  8). 
The  uprights  or  2 x 4’s  should  be  plumbed  in  two  directions 
before  bracing. 

The  hoops  are  made  as  follows  of  three  layers  of  the 
hoop  material  with  broken  joints:  With  6-penny  nails  fasten 
the  right  end  of  the  hoop  material  which  is  the  inner  layer  to 
a 2 x 4 studding.  Keep  this  level  and  bend  around  the  form  to 
the  left.  At  the  second  or  third  studding  begin  the  middle 
layer  by  nailing  to  the  studding  through  the  first  piece  of 
inner  layer  with  three  6-penny  nails.  The  outer  layer  of  the 
hoop  is  started  on  the  third,  fourth  or  sixth  upright.  Do  not 
allow  the  joints  of  any  two  layers  to  come  within  12  inches 
of  each  other.  Nail  all  the  joints  well  with  6-penny  nails. 
Use  8,  10,  or  even  12-penny  nails  in  drawing  the  hoops  to  the 
studding.  Do  not  hesitate  to  drive  nails  into  the  studding 
and  nail  every  3 to  6 inches  between  the  studding.  Complete 
the  hoops  by  fitting  the  respective  joints  of  the  three  layers. 

Start  the  second  hoop  on  the  next  studding  to  the  left 
and  continue  as  before.  If  the  lumber  is  in  good  condition 
three  men  should  build  three  hoops  an  hour.  At  least  two 
men  will  be  required  to  build  the  hoops,  but  a crew  of  three 
men  is  better.  This  work  may  be  done  in  the  spring  and  at 
odd  times  before  building  the  silo.  It  is  better  to  make  the 
hoops  when  material  is  pliable.  If  the  lumber  dries  out,  it 
■can  be  rendered  more  pliable  by  soaking  it  in  water. 

Slightly  better  hoops  may  be  made  by  beveling  the  ends 
so  that  they  will  overlap.  A foot  adz  may  be  used  for  this 
purpose. 

When  all  the  hoops  have  been  completed,  tear  out  the 
interior  braces  and  tie  pieces.  The  hoops  should  go  on  the 
foundation  either  in  the  order  or  in  the  reverse  order  in  which 
they  were  made,  and  in  the  same  position  with  respect  to  one 
another.  In  order  to  do  this,  number  the  hoops  from  top  to 
bottom  with  a heavy  pencil.  Draw  a vertical  line  in  about  five 
places  around  the  form  from  top  to  bottom.  These  marks  will 
be  of  use  when  the  hoops  are  raised.  With  a crowbar,  mat- 
tock or  piece  of  heavy  timber  pry  out  all  the  studding  and 
clinch  all  nails. 


20 


W.VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 


Constructing  Scaffold.  The  scaffold  can  be  constructed 
by  splicing  2 x 4’s  together  on  the  ground,  making  four  up- 
rights as  long  as  the  desired  height  of  the  silo.  These  uprights 
are  raised  and  placed  about  18  inches  toward  the  center  from 
the  hoops  and  in  such  positions  that  they  will  be  equally 
distant  apart.  They  are  then  plumbed  and  braced.  Scaffold 
floors  are  placed  about  every  7^  feet  from  the  top  of  the 
foundation.  Splice  enough  of  the  stave  material  so  as  to 

reach  from  the  top  of 
the  foundation  to  the 
top  of  the  proposed  silor 
and  indicate  on  these 
pieces  where  the  hoops 
are  to  be  placed. 

Spacing  Hoops.  The 

hoops  should  be  spaced 
as  follows : Beginning  at 
the  foundation,  the  cen- 
ter of  the  first  hoop 
should  be  located  6 
inches  above  the  foun- 
dation. The  second  and 
third  hoops  are  spaced 

22  inches  on  center,  the 
fourth  and  fifth  hoops 

23  inches,  and  all  others 
2 feet  apart,  except  the 
last  two,  which  should 
be  spaced  23  inches. 
This  is  done  in  order 
that  joints  in  the  staves- 
may  be  made  at  any 
place  where  there  is  a 
hoop.  By  so  doing,  lum- 
ber 8 feet  or  more  in 

F,g.  9.  Nailing  the  Staves  on.  AftSer  the  sCaffold  has 

been  completed  the  first  hoop  is  raised,  using  three  ropes  for 
this  purpose.  The  first  hoop  is  supported  by  nailing  two 
sound  1 x 4’s  across  the  top  of  the  scaffold  where  the  pieces 
used  for  spacing  the  hoops  indicate  that  the  top  of  the  silo  is- 
to  be.  These  pieces  are  then  fastened  to  the  hoop,  which  has 
been  raised,  at  the  places  indicated  by  the  marks  which  were 
made  while  the  hoops  were  on  the  form,  and  similarly  fasten- 
ed to  the  bottom  hoop,  which  is  resting  on  the  foundation. 
The  top  hoop  is  then  plumbed  with  the  bottom  hoop,  and  the 


July,  I9i6j 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


21 


two  1 x 4’s  are  raised  or  lowered  as  necessary  in  order  to  keep 
the  top  hoop  rigidly  in  place.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  raise 
the  remaining  hoops  and  fasten  them  in  their  proper  places 
by  nailing  to  the  pieces  used  for  spacing.  Plumb  the  hoops 
on  one  side,  where  the  door  is  located,  and  brace  well  to  the 
scaffold. 

Nailing  the  Staves  on.  Begin  on  the  side  where  the  door 
is  to  be,  drop  a perpendicular  line  from  top  to  bottom  and 
mark  on  each  hoop  where  the  first  stave  is  to  be  placed.  Nail 
the  first  staves  to  the 
hoops,  using  two  nails 
for  each  hoop.  Con- 
tinue breaking  joints 
(see  Fig.  9)  and  plumb- 
ing the  hoops  about 
every  five  feet  until 
about  one-half  or  two- 
thirds  of  the  staves 
have  been  put  on.  Mark 
off  the  space  for  doors 
and  door  facings,  be- 
ginning on  the  oppo- 
site side.  Nail  the 
staves  on  as  before. 

This  is  recommended 
because  of  the  fact  that 
it  is  important  to  have 
the  hoops  at  the  doors 
as  uniform  as  possible. 

Making  Doors  and 
Door  Frames.  For 

door  frames  use  floor- 
ing which  has  a 1-16 
inch  bevel  made  so  that  the  doors  will  fit  into  the  frames  from 
the  inside  of  the  silo  and  be  continuous  from  top  to  bottom. 
By  using  eight  pieces  of  3%-inch  face  flooring,  taking  off 
the  tongue  and  groove  of  the  outside  pieces  and  beveling  so 
that  they  will  fit  the  bevel  of  the  door  frame,  a door  about 
25*^  inches  wide  can  be  made.  The  length  of  doors  is  de- 
termined by  the  spacing  of  the  hoops  from  center  to  center. 

The  doors  are  made  of  two  layers  of  flooring  (see  Fig.  10). 
the  outer  layer  fitting  into  the  bevel  of  the  facing,  while  the 
ends  extend  from  the  center  of  one  hoop  to  the  center  of  the 
other.  The  inner  layer  overlaps  the  outer  layer  about  1% 
inches  on  each  side,  the  ends  being  fitted  1%  inches  below 
the  ends  of  the  other  layer.  A piece  of  quarter  round 


Pig.  10. — Doors  are  Constructed  of  Two 
Layers  of  Flooring. 


22  W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  157 

fits  against  the  inner  layer  on  the  sides.  The  two  lay- 
ers are  then  put  into  the  opening,  nailed  together,  and  a bat- 
ten nailed  on.  The  doors  may  be  made  straight  instead  of 
assuming  the  curvature  of  the  silo  (see  Fig.  11).  In  this  event 
no  batten  will  be  needed.  Instead  of  using  batten  the  out- 
side layers  run  in  a horizontal  position  and  the  space  between 
the  door  and  the  hoop  is  filled  with  a piece  of  wood  cut  to 
conform  to  the  curvature  of  the  hoop. 

Lathing  and  Plastering.  The  laths  if  dry  should  be  soak- 
ed in  water  so  that  they  will  bend  easily.  Begin  at  the  top  of 
the  silo  and  nail  the  laths,  from  to  y2  inch  apart,  direct  to 

the  staves.  Break 
joints  as  much  as  pos- 
sible, as  this  will 
slightly  strengthen  the 
silo.  One  coat  of  a 
cement  plaster  is  usu- 
ally sufficient,  using  1 
part  Portland  cement 
and  3 parts  clean, 
sharp  sand  by  volume, 
to  which  is  added  10 
percent  screened,  hy- 
drated lime.  If  dry, 
dampen  the  laths  be- 
fore applying  the  mix- 
ture, as  dry  wood  ab- 
sorbs the  moisture 
from  the  plaster.  The 
finished  wall  should  be 
as  smooth  as  it  is  pos- 
sible to  make  it,  since 
this  will  reduce  friction 
and  allow  the  silage  to 
settle  properly.  The 
plastering  may  be  done  in  a wet  season.  At  any  rate  do  not 
allow  the  wall  to  dry  too  rapidly.  If  it  dries  too  rapidly, 
dampen  with  water.  It  is  a good  plan  to  go  over  the  wall 
with  a coat  of  cement  wash  mixed  to  the  right  consistency 
and  applied  as  whitewash.  A mixture  of  equal  parts  of  coal 
tar  and  gasoline  is  also  excellent.  This  can  be  applied  over 
the  cement  wash. 

Roof.  The  roof  illustrated  in  Figure  12  is  made  of  light 
material  and  the  sections  can  be  easily  opened  and  closed. 
The  chief  advantage  is  that  the  capacity  of  the  silo  is  in- 


Fig.  11. — Straight  Door  Set  in  Door  Frame. 


July,  1916] 


SILOS  AND  SILAGE 


23 


creased.  If  a gable  roof  is  to  be  used  it  should  be  at  least 
y2  pitch.  The  cost  of  a roof  for  a ten  foot  silo  is  about  $15.00. 
A gambrel  roof  is  still  better  (see  Fig.  4)  but  will  cost  about 
80  percent  more. 


Concrete  or  Other  Types  of  Silos.  Owing  to  limited 
space,  building  plans,  including  bill  of  materials,  for  con- 
crete or  types  of  silos  other  than  those  recommended  are  not 
given,  but  will  be  furnished  upon  request. 


Waterproofing  Hoops.  After  the  silo  has  been  com- 
pleted the  hoops  should  receive  a coat  of  creosote,  applied 
hot.  A mixture  of 
equal  parts  coal 

tar  and  gasoline 
or  a mixture  con- 
sisting of  1 gallon 
of  coal  tar  and  1 
pound  of  pulveriz- 
ed rosin  is  some- 
times applied,  the 
latter  mixture  be 
ing  heated  and 

stirred  over  a 
slow  fire.  A little 

oakum  should  be 
added  and  the 
preparation  ap- 
plied to  the  hoops 
while  it  is  hot. 

This  forms  a 
waterproof  coat 
which  greatly  in- 
creases the  dura- 

bility  of  the  12. — A Roof  Which  Increases  the  Capacity 

hooPs-  of  the  Silo. 


Bulletin  158 


July,  1916 


Wt$ t Utrguua  Untoemtp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN 


DEPARTM  E NlllSRAAb RTI C U LTU  R E 
College  cf  A;7,ric«.lta 
University  of  Diktats 

The  Apple  as  Affected  by  Varying  Degrees 
of  Dormant  and  Seasonal  Pruning 


TECHNICAL  BULLETIN 


Heavy  Dormant  Priming.  Light  Dormant  Pruning. 


BY 

W.  H.  Alderman  and  E.  C.  Auchter 


Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  the  West  Virginia 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr..... 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S.  COOK,  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN.  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S 

FIRMAN  E.  BEAR,  M.Sc 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

fL.  I.  KNTGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E WEAKLEY,  .Tr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Sc 

GEORGE  W.  BURKE,  B.S 

ROBERT  M.  SALTER,  M.Sc 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP.  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S.  Agr. 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

*A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  H.  TUCKWILLER,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

C.  E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

..Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Consulting  Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Animal  Industry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

.In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


tin  co-operation  with  (he  University  of  Chicago. 

*In  co-operation  with  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 


The  Apple  as  Affected  by  Varying  Degrees 
of  Dormant  and  Seasonal  Pruning 

By  W.  H.  ALDERMAN  and  E.  C.  AUCHTER. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Probably  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  universally  practiced 
of  orchard  operations  is  pruning.  Earliest  records  in  horti- 
culture contain  repeated  references  to  this  practice,  and  no 
modern  writer  would  think  of  publishing  a general  treatise 
on  orcharding  without  devoting  a considerable  portion  of 
it  to  detailed  directions  regarding  pruning  operations. 
Like  many  other  phases  of  horticulture,  the  subject  of  prun- 
ing has  been  so  much  discussed  that  original  information  has 
been  lost  sight  of  and  oft-repeated  theories  and  statements  of 
general  observations  have  been  blindly  accepted  as  funda- 
mental facts  around  which  have  been  formulated  far-reaching 
principles  of  plant  growth.  That  much  teaching  has  probably 
been  erroneous  is  not  to  be  wondered  at;  the  surprising  thing 
is  that  so  much  has  been  correct.  The  greater  is  the  surprise 
when,  after  a long  search  through  foreign  and  American  writ- 
ings, are  found,  out  of  the  vast  amount  of  published  material, 
barely  a scant  half  dozen  accounts  of  well-planned  experimental 
work  having  to  do  with  the  pruning  of  the  apple,  while  the 
other  tree  fruits  are  even  less  well  provided  for.  The  meager 
results  secured  from  these  experiments  in  widely  separated 
parts  of  the  world  are  not  always  clear  cut  and  have  had 
little  effect  in  molding  the  current  theories  and  principles  of 
pruning.  The  more  important  details  of  some  of  these  ex- 
periments will  be  considered  later  in  connection  with  the  work 
of  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  WEST  VIRGINIA 
EXPERIMENTS. 

History.  In  the  spring  of  1911,  A.  L.  Dacy,  then  assis- 
tant horticulturist  at  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Station,  began  a pruning  experiment  in  an  orchard  on 
the  farm  of  Arthur  Sheets  at  Lost  Creek,  West  Virginia.  This 
orchard  is  located  on  a side  hill  in  a Westmoreland  silty  clay 
loam  soil  of  only  moderate  fertility  and  is  typical  of  many 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


West  Virginia  plantings.  The  orchard  was  put  out  in  the 
spring  of  1909,  but  the  trees  in  that  portion  of  the  orchard  in 
which  the  pruning  experiment  was  later  located  were  nearly 
all  destroyed  by  rabbits  during  the  ensuing  summer  and  win- 
ter. Of  the  replants  in  1910  a few  were  lost  so  that  it  was  not 
until  1911,  the  time  of  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  that 
the  trees  were  all  in  place.  At  the  time  it  was  not  appreciat- 
ed that  the  differences  in  the  ages  of  the  trees  would  seriously 
affect  the  experiment,  but  it  has  now  been  found  necessary  to 
eliminate  from  consideration  all  data  secured  from  trees  not 
planted  in  1910  and  which  were  one  year  old  at  the  time  the 
first  experimental  pruning  was  made.  This  elimination  has 
reduced  the  number  of  trees  from  forty-five  to  twenty-three, 
a number  all  too  small  upon  which  alone  to  base  final  con- 
clusions. Fifteen  trees  of  each  of  the  three  varieties,  York 
Imperial,  Grimes,  and  Rome,  were  originally  included  but  the 
reduction  leaves  seven,  seven,  and  nine  trees  respectively. 
The  orchard  was  planted  in  corn  as  an  intercrop  in  1911,  fol- 
lowed by  a cover  crop  of  crimson  clover.  In  1912  it  was  seed- 
ed down  and  has  been  in  sod  ever  since,  a small  crop  of  hay 
having  been  removed  annually.  Tree  growth  during  the  past 
two  years  has  been  somewhat  lessened  by  this  practice. 

In  the  spring  of  1912  the  experiment  was  greatly  ex- 
tended by  adding  four  other  orchards  to  the  test.  The  first 
of  these  was  a young  orchard  planted  in  1911  upon  property 
now  owned  by  the  Berkeley  Springs  Orchard  Company  of 
Berkeley  Springs,  West  Virginia.  The  soil  in  this  orchard  is 
a rather  thin  gravelly  or  shaley  clay  loam  of  about  the  same 
fertility  as  that  in  the  Sheets  orchard.  The  land,  except  in 
one  spot  where  a small  depression  has  forced  the  elimination  of 
a little  over  one-half  of  one  plot,  slopes  quite  uniformly  and 
gently  to  the  east.  The  experiment  originally  included  one 
hundred  and  eighty-seven  trees,  somewhat  unequally  divided 
among  the  varieties,  Stark,  Gravenstein,  Rome,  and  Stayman 
Winesap,  but  the  above-mentioned  soil  inequality  and  the 
usual  run  of  accidents  to  growth  and  development  have  ren- 
dered it  necessary  to  discard  thirty-six  trees,  thus  leaving  one 
hundred  and  fifty-one  trees  which  are  uniform  and  comparable 
In  every  way.  The  orchard  was  planted  in  an  intercrop  of  corn 
in  1911  with  cowpeas  planted  at  the  last  cultivation  as  a cover 
crop.  In  1912  and  1913  tomatoes  were  planted  as  intercrops, 
followed  by  crimson  clover  sowed  at  the  last  cultivation.  In 
1914  the  clover  was  allowed  to  stand  and  was  plowed  under 
after  it  had  made  a good  growth.  In  1915  tomatoes  were 
again  grown  and  were  followed  by  a cover  crop  of  rye. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


5 


The  two  orchards  already  described  have  furnished  ma- 
terial for  a study  of  the  effects  of  pruning  up  to  bearing  age 
upon  the  trees.  The  next  two  orchards  to  be  described  taken 
together  illustrate  the  influence  of  pruning  upon  orchards  just 
coming  into  bearing.  These  orchards,  the  one  belonging  to 
Lupton  Brothers  and  the  other  to  the  Grimes  Golden  Orchard 
Company,  are  both  near  Martinsburg,  West  Virginia,  and  are 
located  upon  fertile  limestone  soil,  the  surface  of  which  is 
broken  by  numerous  limestone  outcrops.  In  the  Lupton  or- 
chard a block  of  ninety  York  Imperial,  six  years  old,  was 
chosen.  The  soil  treatment  in  this  orchard  consisted  of  culti- 
vation each  year  with  occasionally  a crop  of  corn  between  the 
rows.  A strip  of  sod,  however,  was  left  in  each  of  the  tree 
rows.  In  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  two  blocks  of  forty- 
five  trees  each  of  seven-year-old  York  Imperial  and  Grimes 
were  chosen.  The  choice  was  an  unfortunate  one,  however, 
as  the  Grimes  row  subsequently  bore  so  many  Gano  apples 
that  it  was  found  necessary  to  abandon  it  bodily.  In  the 
York  Imperial  block  some  trees  not  true  to  name  were  found, 
so  that  the  total  number  of  trees  was  reduced  to  thirty-seven. 
The  cultural  treatment  in  this  block  has  been  sod  in  1912, 
sod  with  tree  rows  cultivated  in  1913,  and  cultivation  followed 
by  good  natural  weed  cover  crops  in  1914  and  1915. 

The  fifth  test  was  in  C.  W.  Boyer’s  orchard  at  Bunker 
Hill,  West  Virginia,  and  furnishes  an  opportunity  for  a study 
of  the  effects  of  pruning  on  older  bearing  trees.  The  orchard 
is  somewhat  elevated  over  the  general  level  of  the  Shenan- 
doah valley  and  is  on  fertile  limestone  soil.  Thirty-five  trees 
each  of  fifteen-year-old  York  Imperial  and  Arkansas  (Mam- 
moth Black  Twig)  varieties  were  selected  for  the  test.  The 
trees  were  not  in  a very  vigorous  condition  at  the  beginning 
of  the  experiment  but  under  the  influence  of  cultivation,  leg- 
uminous cover  crops,  and  some  fertilization,  the  entire  orchard 
is  now  in  excellent  condition.  Only  two  crops  of  Arkansas, 
in  1914  and  1915,  and  one  very  heavy  crop  of  York  Imperial, 
in  1914,  have  been  secured,  apple  rust  and  the  disastrous  freeze 
of  1913  being  responsible  for  the  failures.  Lack  of  uniformity 
in  development,  obviously  not  due  to  pruning,  and  mixed 
varieties  have  led  to  the  discarding  of  three  trees  in  this 
orchard. 

The  accompanying  table  indicates  the  number  of  trees 
of  each  variety  in  the  several  orchards  together  with  the 
treatment  accorded  each  plot. 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15g 

TABLE  I.— The  Number  of  Trees  and  Varieties  in  Each  Plot. 


Sheets  Orchard 


Berkeley  Springs 
Orchard 


PRUNING 

treatment 


Heavy  dormant  ! 1 

Moderate  dormant..J  2 

Light  dormant j 1 

Heavy  dormant  and  j 

early  summer 

Moderate  dormant 
and  early  summer 

Early  summer  i 

Midsummer  | 3 

Repeated  summer 

Ringing  

Total  


2 I 


19 


7 | 9 


23 


34 


32 


c7)  ^ 


Grimes 

Golden  LupUm 
Orchard  Orchard 


Boyer 

Orchard 


24 

19 

19 


62 


2 

5 

5 

4 

5 
37 


10 

10 

9 


10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

88 


Total  number  of  trees  under  experimentation 


33 


34 


.366 


Definition  of  Treatment.  Before  considering  the  results 
of  the  experiment  it  is  necessary  first  to  designate  clearly 
what  was  actually  done  with  the  several  plots  in  order  to 
furnish  a basis  for  an  interpretation  of  the  results  and  for  a 
comparison  with  other  experiments.  In  the  Berkeley  Springs 
orchard  the  three  general  plots  receiving  heavy  dormant, mod- 
erate  dormant,  and  light  dormant  pruning  were  subdivided 
heading  Wbkr  f°!  m,nor, divisions  based  upon  the  amount  of 
nnrm^f  h k °f^e.rm.lnaI  growth  practiced  in  addition  to  the 
o mal  branch  thinning.  The  amounts  of  terminal  growth 
removed  are  as  follows : <8 

Terminal  Growth  Removed  in  Heavy  Pruning. 

Pl°t  A.  Three-fourths  annually  for  five  years,  followed  by 
branch  thinning  only.  y 

Plot  B.— Two-thirds  annually  for  five  years,  followed  by 
branch  thinning  only.  y 

Plot  C.  One-half  annually  for  five  years,  followed  by  branch 
thinning  only. 

Plot  D“Three;fourths  first  year,  two-thirds  second  year,  one- 
half  third  year,  one-third  fourth  year,  one-fourth 
htth  year,  followed  by  branch  thinning  only. 

Terminal  Growth  Removed  in  Moderate  Pruning. 

Plot  E.— One-fourth  annually  for  five  years,  followed  by 
branch  thinning  only. 

Plot  F.— Two-thirds  first  year,  one-third  second  year,  one- 
fourth  third  year,  followed  by  branch  thinning  only. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


7 


Plot  G. — One-half  first  year,  one-third  second  year,  one-fourth 
third  year,  followed  by  branch  thinning  only. 

Terminal  Growth  Removed  in  Light  Pruning. 

Plot  H. — One-half  first  year,  one-fourth  second  year,  followed 
by  branch  thinning  only. 

Plot  I. — One-fourth  first  year,  followed  by  branch  thinning 
only. 

Plot  J. — Not  headed  back,  branch  thinning  only. 

It  soon  became  apparent  that  it  was  not  practicable  to  make 
such  small  variations  in  treatment  in  orchards  not  entirely  un- 
der the  control  of  the  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  and  so 
far  removed  from  headquarters.  Consequently  only  the  general 
grouping  of  heavy,  moderate,  and  light  pruning  will  be  con- 
sidered in  this  bulletin.  In  the  Sheets  orchard  the  heavy  prun- 
ing corresponds  to  plot  D in  the  preceding  outline,  moderate 
pruning  to  plot  F,  and  light  pruning  to  plots  I and  J. 

In  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  and  the  Lupton  orchard 
heavy  pruning  was  secured  by  a severe  thinning  and  heading 
back  of  the  new  growth  each  year,  except  in  1915  when  head- 
ing back  was  discontinued.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  main- 
tain a system  of  heavy  pruning  upon  bearing  trees  without 
removing  a large  amount  of  bearing  wood  and  thus  checking 
seriously  the  fruitage  of  the  tree.  This  fact  led  after  two  or 
three  years  to  a gradual  reduction  of  the  severity  of  this 
type  of  pruning.  A proper  relation,  however,  was  always 
maintained  between  the  heavy,  moderate,  and  light  pruning. 
The  moderate  pruning  in  these  orchards  included  a slight 
heading  back  of  terminal  growth  the  first  few  years ; but  in  the 
light  pruning,  branch  thinning  only  was  practiced  with  no 
heading  back.  On  the  bearing  trees  in  the  Boyer  orchard  no 
heading  back  was  performed,  the  difference  between  heavy, 
moderate,  and  light  pruning  being  secured  by  varying  the 
amount  of  branch  thinning.  In  all  orchards  dormant  pruning 
took  place  between  March  20  and  April  4 of  each  year. 

The  summer  pruning  practiced  was  of  practically  the  same 
type  as  the  dormant  pruning  and  in  amount  of  wood  removed 
corresponded  closely  with  the  moderate  dormant  prun- 
ing. The  early  summer  pruning  was  performed  in  1912  and 
1913  between  May  25  and  May  31  but  in  the  last  two  years 
was  shifted  to  June  9 to  11,  as  the  earlier  pruning  seemed  to 
be  much  too  early.  The  midsummer  pruning  took  place  each 
year  between  July  8 and  15,  while  the  repeated  summer  prun- 
ing was  simply  a combination  of  the  early  and  midsummer 
prunings  and  took  place  on  the  dates  mentioned.  In  this  re- 
gion fruit  bud  formation  in  the  apple  begins  from  June  20  to 
July  1.  Early  summer  pruning  was  performed  just  previous 


8 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


to  this  period  and  midsummer  pruning  just  following  it  after 
the  period  of  most  rapid  growth  was  completed.  It  will  be 
noted  that,  in  two  orchards,  ringing  was  practiced.  This 
phase  of  the  work  consisted  of  the  removal,  at  the  time  of  the 
early  summer  pruning,  of  a narrow  strip  of  bark  around  the 
trunk  of  each  tree  and  near  the  ground.  During  this  girdling 
operation  cafe  was  taken  not  to  injure  the  cambium,  the  soft 
sappy  layer  of  tissue  next  to  the  wood.  Ringing  was  per- 
formed but  once  only  on  each  tree. 


PART  I. — The  Effects  of  Varying  Degrees  of  Dormant 
Pruning  upon  Trees  of  Different  Ages. 


The  Effects  of  Heavy,  Moderate,  and  Light  Pruning 
upon  the  First  Five  Years’  Growth  of  Trees. 

The  data  presented  under  this  head  are  taken  entirely 
from  the  Berkeley  Springs  and  Sheets  orchards.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  results  are  much  more  clearly  cut  in  the  former 
orchard  than  in  the  latter.  It  is  thought  that  too  few  trees 
were  used  in  the  Sheets  orchard  to  overcome  tree  individuality 
and  small  inequalities  in  soil  fertility  which  are  difficult  to  de- 
tect but  which  are  very  liable  to  occur  upon  a hillside.  The  re- 
sults obtained  in  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard,  which  is 
planted  in  a more  uniform  soil  and  contains  a greater  number 
of  trees,  impress  the  writers  as  being  much  more  indicative  of 
true  conclusions  than  do  the  results  of  the  Sheets  experiment. 

Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Amount  of 
Wood  Removed.  It  was  observed  throughout  the  experiment 
wherever  heavy  pruning  was  performed  and  particularly 
where  the  heading  back  was  severe  that  a rank  terminal 
growth  was  secured.  This  result  is  strictly  in  accord  with 
general  teaching  and  observation  and  has  undoubtedly  led  to 
establishing  firmly  in  the  professional’s  as  well  as  in  the  lay- 
man’s mind  the  principle  that  heavy  pruning  tends  to  increase 
the  production  of  wood.  Most  certainly  at  first  glance  this 
would  appear  to  be  true  but  it  will  be  shown  later  that  the  con- 
clusion is  probably  due  to  an  optical  illusion  caused  by  the 
rank  growth  of  a few  branches.  Table  II  shows  data  upon 
the  annual  terminal  growth  taken  from  the  Sheets  orchard 
only. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


9 


TABLE  II. — Average  Length  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  with  Length, 
Weight,  and  Number  of  Branches  Removed  per  Tree. 

(Sheets  Orchard.) 

Average  Length  of  Terminal  Growth  (Inches). 


1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  Average 

Heavy  pruning  42.6  39.2  24.7  23.5  32.3 

Moderate  pruning  40.6  20.8  14.  13.5  22.2 

Light  pruning  .1...  29.4  15.5  9.3  9.9  16.0 

Average  Length  Removed  (Feet). 

1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  Average 

Heavy  pruning  17.  39.  112.5  135.1  91.9  79.1 

Moderate  pruning  15.9  24.8  107.  121.8  52.7  64.4 

Light  pruning  6.2  15.7  70.6  75.9  36.3  40.9 

Average  Weight  Removed  (Pounds). 

1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  Average 

Heavy  pruning  2.57  2.26  1.36  2.06 

Moderate  pruning  2.25  1.6  .68  1.51 

Light  pruning  — 1.46  1.5  .54  1.17 

Average  Number  of  Branches  Removed. 

1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  Average 

Heavy  pruning  7.7  26.7  39.3  81.4  71.4  45.3 

Moderate  pruning  10.  32.6  46.8  84.2  41.6  45. 

Light  pruning  3.1  15.1  33.5  43.3  27.7  24.5 


In  this  orchard  the  pruning  was  heaviest  at  the  beginning 
and  gradually  decreased  as  the  orchard  grew  older.  The  in- 
crease in  size  of  the  trees  more  than  offset  this,  however,  so 
that  the  amount  of  wood  removed  in  terms  of  length,  weight, 
and  number  of  branches  increased  each  year  until  in  1915, 
when  there  was  a marked  decrease.  This  decrease  was  due 
partly  to  the  fact  that  the  trees  made  a slightly  less  than  nor- 
mal growth  in  1914  and  partly  to  a general  lightening  of  prun- 
ing in  trees  of  that  age. 

Total  Length  of  Annual  Growth.  As  a quantitative  meas- 
ure of  the  growth  of  the  trees  each  year,  one  variety  (Stark) 
was  selected  in  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard  and  each  year 
careful  measurements  of  the  total  new  longitudinal  growth 
were  taken  together  with  the  amount  of  this  growth  removed 
at  the  annual  prunings.  It  must  be  understood  that  this  does 
not  represent  an  exact  measure  of  the  volume  of  wood  pro- 
duced each  year  for  the  heavily  pruned  trees  produced  fewer 
but  larger  shoots  than  were  produced  upon  the  lightly  pruned 
trees.  Consequently  the  longitudinal  growth  of  the  heavily 
pruned  blocks  weighed  more  per  running  foot  than  did  that 
of  the  lightly  pruned  blocks.  This  difference  in  character  of 
the  terminal  growth  is  more  than  offset  by  the  annual  increase 
in  diameter  of  the  main  branches.  These  branches  in  the 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


lightly  pruned  trees  are  longer,  not  having  been  headed  back, 
and  consequently  the  total  volume  of  the  ring  of  new  growth 
put  on  by  them  is  greater  than  that  on  the  heavily  pruned 
trees.  It  is  interesting  to  note  from  Table  III  that  for  the 
first  two  years,  1912  and  1913,  the  heavily  pruned  trees  pro- 
duced as  much  as  or  slightly  more  growth  than  did  the  lightly 
pruned  trees. 


Fig.  1. — Row  on  Left  Heavily  Pruned,  Row  on  Right  Lightly  Pruned 

(Stark  Variety). 


Unfortunately  the  lightly  pruned  plot  at  one  end  dipped 
into  a depression  where  the  soil  seemed  to  be  richer  and 
growth  was  correspondingly  greater  than  in  the  remainder  of 
the  plot.  To  overcome  this  difficulty  a number  of  trees  were 
discarded  so  that  this  plot  finally  contained  four  trees  and  the 
heavily  pruned  plot  contained  nineteen  trees. 

TABLE  III. — Average  Total  Length  per  Tree  of  Annual  Longitudinal 
Growth  and  Length  in  Feet  Removed  Each  Year.  (Stark  Variety). 


HEAVY  PRUNING 

LIGHT  PRUNING 

Season 

of 

Growth 

[Average 
Total 
Length  of 
Growth 

Average 

Length 

Removed 

Percent 

Re. 

moved 

Average  1 
Total) 
Length  of 
Growth 

Average 

Length 

Removed 

Percent 

Re- 

moved 

Gain  in  Feet 
Over 

Heavy  Pruning 

1911 

1 

4.41 

3.3 

74.8 

5.58 

3.44 

61.6 

1912 

16.25 

12.91 

79.4 

15.51 

4.78 

31.4 

.74 

1913 

41.53 

33.16 

79.8 

34.33 

13.89 

41.4 

— 7.20 

1914  | 

84.08 

49.17 

58.4 

99.39 

22.12 

22.2 

+15.31 

1915  | 

161.74 

| 

224.89 

+63.15 

July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


11 


It  appears  quite  clear  from  this  table  that  the  removal  of 
about  75%  of  the  new  growth  at  the  first  and  second  primings 
(pruning  at  planting  time  not  considered)  may  have  a bene- 
ficial effect  upon  tree  growth  but  that  after  that  time  severe 
pruning  should  be  avoided. 

In  order  to  see  if  light  pruning  produced  the  same  ten- 
dency toward  greater  growth  in  other  varieties,  careful  meas- 
urements were  made  of  the  total  longitudinal  growth  pro- 
duced in  1915  on  a considerable  number  of  trees  in  each  or- 
chard. The  results  of  this  study  are  shown  in  detail  in  Table 
IV.  While  there  is  some  deviation  in  the  case  of  the  Graven- 
stein  at  Berkeley  Springs  and  in  the  mixed  York  Imperial, 
Rome,  and  Grimes  block  in  the  Sheets  orchard,  it  can  be  plain- 
ly seen  that  the  general  tendency  is  to  put  on  a new  growth  in 
inverse  ratio  to  the  amount  of  wood  removed. 

TABLE  IV. — Average  Total  Length  per  Tree  in  Feet  of  Longitudinal 


Growth  in  1915. 

No.  of  Heavily  Prun-  No.  of  Lightly  Prun- 
Variety  Trees  ed  Trees  Trees  ed  Trees 

Stavman  Winesap  11  125.12  12  152.93 

Rome  6 120.75  7 174.86 

Gravenstein  6 144.66  10  121.75 

Stark  19  161.74  4 224.89 


York  Imperial,  Grimes,  and 

Rome  in  Sheets  Orchard  7 204.  6 188. 

Average  for  all  varieties..-  131.25  172.49 

Size  and  Form  of  Trees.  It  would  appear  from  Table  III 
that  the  heavily  pruned  trees  averaged  less  annual  longitudinal 
growth  than  did  the  others  and  as  they  were  cut  back  severely 
they  consequently  should  be  somewhat  smaller  in  size.  Cas- 
ual observation  indicated  this  to  be  true  but  to  avoid  any 
mistake  the  heights  and  widths  of  all  trees  in  the  two  orchards 
were  measured  in  1915  at  the  close  of  the  season’s  growth. 

TABLE  V. — Average  Height  and  Width  of  Trees. 


Type  of 

No.  of 

Height 

Width 

Variety 

Pruning 

Trees 

in  Feet 

in  Feet 

Stayman  Winesap  

. Heavy 

24 

7.32 

5.29 

Stayman  Winesap  

. Moderate 

19 

7.89 

5.52 

Stayman  Winesap  

. Light 

19 

9.50 

5.65 

Rome  

. Heavy 

13 

7.45 

3.68 

Rome  

. Moderate 

8 

8.18 

4.17 

Rome  

. Light 

11 

9.16 

4.23 

Gravenstein  

. Heavy 

17 

7.43 

4.05 

Gravenstein  

. Moderate 

7 

6.83 

4.19 

Gravenstein  

. Light 

10 

8.94 

4.34 

Stark  

. Heavy 

19 

7.57 

5.17 

Stark  

. Light 

4 

10.79 

6.85 

York  Imperial,  Grimes,  and 

Heavy 

7 

9.55 

4.83 

Rome  in  Sheets  Orchard 

Moderate 

5 

9.73 

6.17 

Light 

6 

10.50 

7.10 

12  W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 

It  will  be  seen  from  Table  V that  in  no  instance  is  the 
height  or  width  of  trees  as  great  in  the  case  of  heavy  and  mod- 
erate pruning  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  light  pruning  (see  illustra- 
tion on  cover  and  figs.  1,  2,  and  3)  and  in  only  one  instance, 
height  of  Gravenstein  trees,  is  moderate  pruning  exceeded  by 
heavy  pruning.  In  the  latter  instance  the  width  of.  the  moder- 
ately pruned  Gravenstein  is  greater  than  that  of  the  heavily 
pruned  trees. 


Fig.  2.  — Stayman  Winesap  Given  Fig.  3. — Stayman  Winesap  Given 
Light  Annual  Dormant  Pruning.  Heavy  Annual  Dormant  Pruning. 

Effect  upon  Form  of  Tree.  The  question  naturally  arises 
as  to  what  effect  heavy  and  light  pruning,  particularly  heavy 
and  light  heading  back,  may  have  upon  the  form  of  trees.  The 
effect  is  more  easily  illustrated  than  described.  Figures  4 
to  15  show  typical  trees  of  the  different  groups  as  they  ap- 
peared each  year.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  primary  limb  scaf- 
fold branches  are  longer  following  light  pruning  than  follow- 
ing heavy  pruning,  and  that  the  secondary  branches  start  out 
at  a greater  distance  from  the  trunk.  This  gives  the  tree  a 
sprawling  habit  during  the  first  few  years  which  is  in  sharp 
contrast  to  the  compact,  neatly-built  trees  in  the  more  heav- 
ily pruned  plots.  After  the  third  or  fourth  year,  however,  this 
difference  is  not  so  noticeable,  due  to  the  thickening  of  scaf- 
fold limbs  and  the  filling  in  of  laterals  in  the  lighter  pruned 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


13 


Fig.  4. — After  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1913. 


Fig.  5. — Before  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1914. 


HEAVILY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


LIGHTLY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


Fig.  10. — After  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1913. 


Fig.  11.  — Before  Pruning, 
Spring  of  1914. 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15& 


HEAVILY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


Fig.  6. — After  Pruning,  Spring  Fig.  7, — Before  Pruning,  Spring 

of  1914.  of  1915. 

LIGHTLY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


Fig.  12.  — After  Pruning, 
Spring  of  1914. 


Fig.  13.  — Before  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1915. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


15 


HEAVILY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


Fig.  8.- 


-Al'ter  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1915. 


Fig.  9. — Before  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1916. 


LIGHTLY  PRUNED  STAYMAN  WINESAP. 


Fig.  14.  — After  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1915. 


Fig.  15.-Before  Pruning,  Spring 
of  1916. 


16 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


trees.  It  is  doubtful  if  trees  which  have  not  been  headed  back 
at  all  the  first  or  second  year  will  ever  acquire  as  satisfactory  a 
form  as  those  the  branches  of  which  have  been  shortened  dur- 
ing this  period.  In  the  interest  of  strength  and  sturdiness  of 
tree,  the  primary  branches  should  not  be  too  long  and  the  sec- 
ondary branches  should  spring  not  farther  than  twelve  or  six- 
teen inches  from  the  trunk.  This  can  be  accomplished  only  by 
judicious  heading  back  the  first  and  probably  the  second  sea- 
sons. After  this  time  light  pruning  is  to  be  preferred. 

Stockiness  as  Indicated  by  Diameter  of  Trunk  and 
Branches.  Up  to  this  point  it  has  been  shown  that  the  individ- 
ual terminal  growth  of  the  heavily  pruned  trees  averages  lar- 
ger than  that  of  the  more  lightly  pruned  blocks,  but  that  a 
greater  total  length  or  extension  of  terminal  growth  took  place 
under  light  pruning.  It  has  also  been  shown  that  trees  pruned 
lightly  are  taller  and  broader  than  those  pruned  heavily.  So 
far  no  data  have  been  presented  bearing  upon  the  increase  in 
thickness  of  trunk  or  branches:  Unless  such  data  are  pre- 

sented it  might  be  argued  that -the  longer  longitudinal  growth 
of  the  lightly  pruned  plots  would  result  in  spindling  and  weak 
branches  with  less  total  volume  of  growth  than  in  the  heavily 
pruned  plots.  In  addition  to  throwing  light  upon  this  point 
it  is  believed  that  records  showing  actual  increase  in  diameter 
of  trunk  and  perhaps  of  main  branches  constitute  the  most  re- 
liable evidence  of  tree  vigor  securable  without  actually  remov- 
ing the  tree  with  its  roots  from  the  soil  and  weighing  it. 

In  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard  records  of  the  diameters 
of  the  trunks  of  all  trees  have  been  kept  each  year,  the  diame- 
ters being  taken  in  each  case  at  a point  just  below  the  head. 
The  detailed  records  of  these  data  are  show  in  Table  VI.  The 
trees  in  the  several  plots  were  very  uniform  in  the  beginning 
except  those  in  the  moderately  pruned  Gravenstein  and 
lightly  pruned  Stark  and  in  this  case  although  undersized 
at  the  beginning  both  blocks  overcame  the  handicap  within 
four  years  or  less. 

An  interesting  feature  brought  out  in  Table  VI  is  that 
there  is  practically  no  difference  between  the  three  plots  in 
increase  of  trunk  diameter  for  the  first  two  years  of  the  ex- 
periment, but  in  the  year  1914  when  the  trees  were  making 
their  fourth  season’s  growth,  being  their  third  under  ex- 
periment, the  more  lightly  pruned  trees  began  to  forge  ahead 
of  the  others.  In  1915  this  difference  became  still  more  pro- 
nounced. This  phenomenon  corresponds  very  closely  with 
the  way  the  Stark  trees  behaved  with  regard  to  their  total 
longitudinal  growth  (see  Table  III)  and  confirms  the  opinion 
held  by  the  authors  that  a fairly  heavy  pruning  the  first  two 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


17 


TABLE  VI. — Increase  in  Diameters  of  Tree  Trunks  in  Inches. 
(Berkeley  Springs  Orchard.) 


VARIETY 

Type  of 
Pruning 

Number 

of 

Trees 

Diameter 

1911 

Diameter 

1912 

Diameter 

1913 

Diameter 

1914 

Diameter 

1915 

Increase 
in  Four 

Years 

Stayman  Winesap 

Heavy 

24 

.36 

.74 

1.14 

1.48 

1.95 

1.59 

Stayman  Winesap 

Mod. 

19 

.35 

.75 

1.15 

1.56 

2.06 

1.71 

Stayman  Winesap 

Light 

19 

.34 

.75 

1.17 

1.61 

2.20 

1.86 

Rome  

Heavy 

13 

.34 

.70 

1.02 

1.25 

1.61 

1.27 

Rome  

Mod. 

8 

.34 

.72 

1.13 

1.47 

1.97 

1.65 

Rome  

Light 

11 

.35 

.70 

1.04 

1.65 

2.13 

1.78 

Gravenstein  

Heavy 

17 

.32 

.72 

1.13 

1.47 

1.97 

1.65 

Gravenstein  

Mod. 

7 

,27 

.71 

1.05 

1.32 

1.90 

1.63 

Gravenstein  

Light 

10 

.31 

.72 

1.11 

1.38 

2.27 

1.96 

Stark  

Heavy 

19 

.33 

.73 

1.15 

1.57 

2.17 

1.98 

Stark  

Light 

4 

.28 

.68 

1.16 

1.87 

2.91 

2.63 

Weighted  Average 

Heavy 

73 

.34 

.73 

1.12 

1.46 

1.95 

1.61 

of  all  varieties.. 

Mod. 

34 

.33 

.73 

1.11 

1.49 

2.02 

1.69 

Light 

44 

.33 

.72 

1.12 

1.59 

2.26 

1.93 

years  is  desirable  since  it  does  not  retard  growth  and  aids  in 
forming  a well-shaped  tree. 

Goethe,*  a German  investigator,  cites  a case  in  which 
trunk  measurements  were  made  of  a block  of  eighty-eight 
two-year-old  apple  trees  sixty  of  which  had  been  heavily 
pruned  and  twenty-eight  lightly  pruned.  The  heavily  pruned 
trees  averaged  8.4  cm.  in  circumference  and  the  lightly  pruned 
ones  9.5  cm.  The  following  year  the  same  trees  were  re- 
measured and  the  heavily  pruned  ones  had  gained  1.1  cm.  in 
circumference  while  the  others  had  increased  2 cm.,  or  a gain 
of  .9  cm.  in  favor  of  light  pruning.  In  another  block  of  three- 
year-old  apple  trees  37  trees  had  been  unpruned  and  49  heav- 
ily pruned.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  season  the  un- 
pruned trees  averaged  10.7  cm.  in  trunk  circumference  and 
the  pruned  trees  averaged  8.6  cm.  At  the  close  of  the  season 
the  unpruned  trees  had  increased  2.6  cm.  and  the  pruned  trees 
1.1  cm.,  or  a gain  of  1.5  cm.  in  favor  of  the  light  or  no  pruning. 
The  same  author  called  attention  to  the  condition  of  two 
groups  of  sycamore  trees,  each  20  years  old.  One  group  which 
had  been  heavily  pruned  averaged  .7  meters  in  circumference 
and  the  other  which  had  been  unpruned  averaged  1.05  meters. 

In  1915  we  wished  to  learn  if  the  main  limbs  behaved  the 
same  as  the  trunks  and  increased  in  diameter  inversely  as  to 

•The  Effect  of  Annual  Pruning  on  the  Growth  of  Trees,  R.  Goethe,  Ber.  K. 
Lehranst  obst.  Wein  U.  Gartenbau  Geisenheim,  1899-1900,  pp.  54-56. 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


the  amount  of  pruning.  To  secure  this  information  all  the 
scaffold  limbs  and  the  central  leaders  were  calipered  just  above 
their  point  of  union  at  the  head.  At  first,  trees  having  three, 
four,  or  five  branches  were  kept  separate  and  comparisons 
were,  made  only  between  trees  of  similar  branching  habit, 
but  as  the  relation  between  heavy  and  light  pruning  remained 
practically  the  same  in  each  type,  the  results  are  thrown  to- 
gether for  the  sake  of  convenience. 


TABLE  VII. — Diameter  in  Inches  of  Main  Branches  in  1915. 
(Berkeley  Springs  Orchard.) 


VARIETY 

Stayman  Winesap  

Rome  

Gravenstein  

Stark  

Weighted  average  of  all 
varieties  


Heavy 

Moderate 

Light 

Increase  of  Light  Over 
Heavy  Pruning 

1.125 

1.17 

1.43 

.305 

.92 

1.20 

1.25 

.33 

1.20 

1.01 

1.19 

—.01 

1.18 

1.45 

.27 

1.12 

1.15 

1.36 

.24 

It  is  very  clear  from  Table  VII  that  the  branch  growth 
on  the  lightly  pruned  trees  is  neither  “spindling”  nor  weak. 
On  the  contrary,  these  lightly  pruned  trees  averaged  larger  by 
a quarter  of  an  inch  in  diameter  than  did  the  heavily  pruned 
trees,  and  if  we  may  judge  from  the  way  the  trunks  are  be- 
having this  difference  will  probably  become  more  pronounced 
in  later  years. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  data  gathered  from  the 
Sheets  orchard  are  not  as  conclusive  nor  the  results  as  clear 
cut  as  in  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard.  In  fact,  the  authors 
at  first  had  serious  doubts  regarding  the  propriety  of  publish- 
ing the  data  secured  in  the  Sheets  orchard  because  of  the  ex- 
perimental error  to  which  it  is  subjected.  The  original  num- 
ber of  trees  in  the  experiment  was  too  small  to  permit  of  very 
accurate  work  and  as  a number  have  since  been  discarded  the 
results  when  taken  alone  mean  little.  They  do,  however,  tend 
to  bear  out  in  many  respects  the  work  in  the  Berkeley  Springs 
orchard  and  for  this  reason  it  was  finally  decided  to  include 
them  in  the  report.  The  trunk  measurements  were  not  taken 
each  year,  but  at  the  close  of  the  1915  season’s  growth  the  cir- 
cumferences of  the  trees  in  the  three  plots  were  taken  and  are 
shown  in  Table  VIII. 


TABLE  VIII. — Circumference  of  Tree  Trunks. 
(Sheets  Orchard.) 


Type  of  Pruning 

Heavy  

Moderate  

Light  


Circumference 

8.46  inches 

9.62  inches 

9.91  inches 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


19 


In  this  instance  the  lightly  pruned  trees  exceeded  those 
heavily  pruned  by  one  and  one-half  inches  in  circumference. 
These  facts  furnish  valuable  corroborative  evidence  when 
taken  in  connection  with  the  work  in  the  other  young  orchard. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  the  average  diameter 
of  the  first  scaffold  limbs  was  taken  at  their  base.  The  fol- 
lowing year  these  limbs  were  again  measured  as  were  also 
the  terminal  shoots  which  extended  the  scaffold  limbs.  Each 
subsequent  year  the  diameter  of  the  terminal  growth  of  each 
main  branch  was  secured  and  also  the  diameter  of  each  of  the 
preceding  year’s  growth  on  these  limbs.  Thus  we  are  able  to 
study  the  influence  of  heavy,  moderate,  and  light  pruning  not 
only  upon  the  diameter  of  the  terminal  growth  following  the 
pruning,  but  also  upon  the  sections  of  the  branch  one,  two, 
three,  and  four  years  back  from  the  terminal.  It  is  recognized 
that  heavy  pruning  involving  heading  back  produces  a long 
and  correspondingly  thick  terminal  growth  but  a more  import- 
ant question  is  whether  it  tends  to  thicken  the  branch  back  of 
the  point  at  which  the  cut  was  made.  A summary  of  these 
measurements  is  shown  in  Table  IX. 

TABLE  IX. — Increase  in  Inches  in  Diameters  of  Main  Limbs. 

(Sheets  Orchard.) 


HEAVY  PRUNING,  7 TREES. 


Total  Age  of  Branch 
Section 

Average  Increase  Each  Year 

Average 

Yearly 

Increase 

Total 

Diame- 

ter, 

1915 

Average 

Increase 

After 

First 

Year 

Total 

Increase 

After 

First 

Year 

1911  | 1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

5 years  

.332  | .198 

1 .170 

.187 

.102 

| 

.198 

I .989  ' 

I 

| .164 

| .657 

4 years  

! | .408 

! .046 

.170 

.124 

.187 

| .748 

.113 

1 .340 

3 years  .. 

I . . .. 

.306 

.147 

.082 

.178 

| .535 

.115 

.229 

2 years  

I 

1 

.311 

.071 

.191 

1 .382 

.071 

.071 

1 year 

I .... 

.268 

1 

1 1 

MODERATE  PRUNING,  5 TREES. 


5 years  

.332 

.196 

.182 

.160 

.098 

1 

.194 

.968 

.157 

.636 

4 years  

.396 

.105 

.119 

.118 

.148 

.738 

.114 

.342 

3 years  . 

.242 

.094 

.098 

.145 

.434 

.096 

.192 

2 years  

.226 

.066 

.146 

.292 

.066 

.066 

1 year 

.204 

LIGHT  PRUNING,  6 TREES. 


5 years  

1 

.257 

.157 

.161 

.168 

.184 

.185 

.927 

.168 

.670 

4 years  

.296 

.064 

.144 

.123 

.157 

.627 

.110 

.331 

3 years  

.225 

.096 

.094 

.138 

.415 

.095 

.190 

2 years  

.198 

.076 

.137 

.274 

.076 

.076 

1 year  

.196 

20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


Although  the  data  in  this  table  are  largely  negative  in 
nature  there  are  a few  things  that  should  be  pointed  out  as 
being  at  least  suggestive.  First,  the  table  shows  that  in  each 
case  the  terminal  growth  has  a greater  average  diameter  when 
the  pruning  is  heavy.  (The  diameter  of  terminal  growth  is 
shown  by  the  first  decimal  in  the  first  column  of  each  line.) 
Then,  ignoring  the  terminal  growth  which  is  always  heavy 
following  heavy  pruning  and  referring  to  the  second  column 
from  the  right  side  of  the  table  under  the  caption  “Average 
Increase  After  First  Year”  we  find  that  there  is  practically  no 
difference  in  favor  of  any  method  of  pruning.  The  lightly 
pruned  plot  has  a slight  advantage  in  the  two-  and  five-year- 
old  sections  but  loses  in  the  three-  and  four-year-old  sections. 
It  should  be  noticed  that  in  1915  the  lightly  pruned  block 
made  a greater  increase  in  its  several  sections,  terminal  growth 
excluded,  than  did  either  of  the  other  two  blocks.  This  may 
support  previous  evidence  that  heavily  pruned  trees  make  bet- 
ter growth  the  first  year  or  two  but  that  lightly  pruned  trees 
overtake  and  pass  them  by  the  third  to  fifth  season. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  refer  at  this  point  to  work*  done 
at  the  English  Experimental  Fruit  Farm  at  Woburn.  A large 
number  of  terminal  shoots  36  inches  long  were  selected. 
These  shoots  were  divided  into  four  groups,  the  first  of  which 
was  headed  back  to  6 inches,  the  second  to  12  inches,  the 
third  to  24  inches,  and  in  the  fourth  the  terminal  bud  only  was 
removed.  After  one  season’s  growth  the  basal  enlargements  of 
each  original  shoot  were  measured  and  were  found  to  bear  the 
following  relation  to  each  other: 


6-inch  group  100 

12-inch  group  114 

24-inch  group  117 

36-inch  group  124 


As  these  comparisons  were  made  from  branches  on  the 
same  tree  they  would  seem  to  indicate  pretty  definitely  that 
the  lighter  the  pruning,  the  greater  will  be  the  increase  in  di- 
ameter of  wood  growth  back  of  the  cut.  This  is  strictly  in 
accordance  with  the  work  in  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard, 
and  as  far  as  trunk  measurements  are  concerned  also  in  the 
Sheets  orchard,  except  in  this  work  the  increase  in  favor  of 
light  pruning  was  sometimes  deferred  for  two  or  more  years. 
It  should  be  stated  that  the  trees  in  the  Woburn  experiment 
just  quoted  were  of  bearing  age  while  the  ones  in  this  experi- 
ment were  not  yet  in  bearing. 

Early  Bearing.  The  trees  in  both  orchards  are  too  young 
to  have  produced  much  fruit  up  to  this  time  but  a small 

♦Bedford  and  Pickering,  Woburn  Experimental  Fruit  Farm,  Seventh  Re- 
port, 1907. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


21 


amount  has  been  secured  from  the  Sheets  orchard  and  a few 
specimens  formed  in  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard  in  1915  but 
were  picked  off  by  the  owners  so  as  not  to  check  tree  develop- 
ment. In  both  orchards  some  bloom  was  found  in  1914  and 
1915,  and  a good  set  of  fruit  buds  has  been  recorded  for  the 
1916  crop. 


TABLE  X. — Effect  of  Pruning  upon  Early  Bearing. 
(Berkeley  Springs  Orchard). 


VARIETY 


TyPe 

Pruning 


Bloom  Clusters  Percent  Bloom  Percent  Fruit  Buds 

Per  Tree,  1914  Per  Tree,  1915  Per  Tree,  1916 


Stayman  Winesap..  Heavy 
Stayman  Winesap..  Moderate 
Stayman  Winesap..  Light 

Rome  Heavy 

Rome  Moderate 

Rome  Light 


0 

1 

50.4 

.16 

6.4 

72.4 

.05 

13 

86.3 

0 

0 

17 

1.6 

9 

66 

2.4 

10 

51 

Gravenstein  Heavy  0 

Gravenstein  Moderate  0 

Gravenstein  Light  0 


0 36 

0 30 

0 54 


Stark  Heavy  0 

Stark  Light  0 


0 34 

0 61 


TABLE  XI. — Effect  of  Pruning  upon  Early  Bearing. 
(Sheets  Orchard.) 


Type 

PruLing 

Bloom  Clus- 
ters Per 
'lree,  1914 

Fruits 

Per 

Tree, 

1914 

Bloom  Clus- 
ters  Per  Tree, 
1915 

Fruits  Per  Tree 
1915 

Percent 
Fruit  Buds 
Per  Tree, 
1916 

Number  | 

1 

Wgt.  (lbs)  ; 

Heavy  

.14 

0 

1.86 

.7 

.25 

3.7 

Moderate  

3.4 

.2 

40.00 

12.2 

3.35 

20 

Light  

15.5 

2.0 

175.00 

24 

6.64 

38 

Table  X and  Table  XI  need  little  explanation.  In  both 
orchards  the  results  are  exactly  the  same  and  in  both  casesv 
light  pruning  has  shown  a strong  tendency  to  induce  early 
bearing  and  heavy  pruning  has  retarded  bearing.  In  the  Wo- 
burn experiment  already  referred  to,  similar  results  were  se- 
cured on  dwarf  trees.  In  that  experiment,  records  for  12  years 
were  reported  in  three  periods.  The  yield  of  the  moderately 
pruned  trees  was  taken  as  100  and  proportional  values  were 
attached  to  the  other  groups  with  the  following  results : 

1st  5 Yrs.  2nd  5 Yrs.  12th  Yr. 

Heavy  pruning  75  50  ,5 

Moderate  pruning  100  100  100 

Light  pruning  90  150  145 

No  pruning  220  200  275. 


22 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


The  same  experiment  station  reported  the  yields  of  53 
varieties  of  standard  and  80  varieties  of  dwarf  trees  for  one 
year,  contrasting  moderate  and  heavy  pruning. 

Standards  Dwarfs 
28  30 

100  100 

There  can  seem  to  be  no  question  that  young  apple  trees 
if  given  little  or  no  pruning  will  come  into  bearing  earlier  than 
if  pruned  heavily. 

Volume  of  Growth  Affected  by  Pruning.  In  measuring 
the  effect  of  pruning  or  of  any  other  factor  upon  tree  growth,  a 
single  set  of  measurements  is  often  of  little  value.  The  true 
vigor  of  the  tree  can  only  be  determined  by  finding  the  actual 
volume  or  weight  of  new  tissue  formed.  In  young  trees  this 
volume  is  confined  to  the  leaves  and  to  the  wood  of  tops  and 
roots.  In  older  trees  the  fruit  must,  of  course,  be  also  consid- 
ered. There  is  no  feasible  way  of  measuring  exactly  the 
yearly  increase  in  new  tissue  without  actually  digging  up  a 
number  of  trees  each  season,  but  a comparative  estimate  that 
is  reasonably  accurate  may  be  made  if  sufficient  data  have 
been  secured.  Regarding  the  young  trees  in  the  two  orchards 
under  discussion  five  salient  facts  were  determined  by  suffi- 
ciently careful  measurements.  First,  the  lightly  pruned  trees 
are  taller  and  broader  than  those  heavily  pruned.  Second,  the 
lightly  pruned'  trees  have  annually  made  the  longer  total 
growth.  Third,  the  main  branches  of  the  lightly  pruned  trees 
though  longer  are  larger  in  diameter  than  those  of  the  heavily 
pruned  plots.  Fourth,  the  lightly  pruned  trees  have  the  larger 
trunks.  Fifth,  while  little  or  no  fruit  has  been  produced,  the 
lightly  pruned  trees  have  exhibited  a tendency  toward  early 
bearing,  as  evidenced  by  bud  and  flower  formation,  and  heavy 
pruning  has  shown  a tendency  to  retard  bearing.  No  meas- 
urements of  root  growth  have  been  possible  but  since  the 
lightly  pruned  trees  are  the  larger,  have  made  the  longer  an- 
nual growth,  have  the  thicker  limbs  and  trunks,  and  have 
shown  the  greater  tendency  toward  fruitfulness,  it  can  only  be 
concluded  that  they  are  making  the  greater  annual  production 
of  new  tissue. 

The  Woburn  Experiment  Station*  in  its  seventh  report 
gives  corroborative  data  upon  the  point  under  discussion.  After 
dwarf  trees  had  been  under  experiment  12  years,  it  was  found 
necessary  to  thin  the  planting  and  the  opportunity  was  taken 
to  weigh  carefully  the  trunks  and  branches  and  as  much  of  the 

•Bedford  and  Pickering,  Woburn  Experimental  Fruit  Farm,  Seventh  Re- 
port, 1907. 


Heavy  pruning  .... 
Moderate  pruning 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


23 


root  systems  as  was  formed  within  a radius  of  18  inches  from 
the  trunks.  The  heavily  pruned  trees  were  found  to  be  16% 
lighter  than  the  moderately  pruned  trees,  while  those  left  un- 
pruned were  20%  heavier  than  those  moderately  pruned.  Es- 
timates were  made  of  the  amount  of  wood  removed  in  pruning 
and,  as  the  total  weight  of  this  wood  did  not  nearly  equal  the 
difference  in  weight  off  the  trees,  it  was  assumed  that  the  un- 
pruned trees  had  actually  produced  more  new  tissue  during 
the  12  years  than  had  the  ones  severely  pruned. 


Effects  of  Varying  Degrees  of  Dormant  Pruning  Upon 
Orchards  Just  Attaining  Bearing  Age. 

The  Grimes  Golden  and  Lupton  orchards  were  used  in 
this  test.  The  variety  was  York  Imperial  in  each  instance. 
The  trees  in  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  were  seven  years  old 
at  the  beginning  of  the  test  and  were  arranged  five  in  a plot, 
while  the  Lupton  orchard  was  six  years  old  with  ten  trees  in 
a plot.  The  former  orchard  was  making  good  growth  and  the 
latter  only  a fair  growth  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment ; 
but  both  carried  too  many  scaffold  limbs  which,  because  of 
crowding,  had  made  a long  but  weak  growth.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  correct  this  trouble  in  the  experimental  plots  and 
in  all  blocks  some  large  limbs  were  removed  at  the  start. 

Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight  of 
Wood  Removed.  The  terminal  growth  following  pruning  re- 
sponded in  the  same  manner  as  did  that  in  the  younger  or- 
chards ; that  is,  the  heavier  pruned  trees  produced  longer  and 
heavier  shoots  than  did  those  lightly  pruned. 

TABLE  XII. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight 
of  Wood  Removed. 


Grimes  Golden  Orchard 

Lupton  Orchard 

Heavy 

Pruning 

Moderate 

Pruning 

Light 

Pruning 

• 

Heavy 

Pruning 

Moderate 

Pruning 

Light 

Pruning 

Length  of  growth  in 
inches,  1911  

12.41 

14.42 

15. 

7.87 

7.30 

7.75 

Ave.  length  of  growth 
in  inches,  1912-’15 

14.79 

12.68 

11.36 

1 15.87 

10.74 

8.37 

Diameter  of  growth  in 
inches,  1911  

.214 

.211 

.22 

.159 

.156 

.166 

Ave.  diam.  of  growth 
in  inches,  1912-T5 

.215 

1 .18 

1 

I .172 

.218 

! .181 

.166 

Ave.  amt.  in  pounds  of 
wood  removed,  1912-’15 

8.37 

7.81 

3.78 

1 

3.87 

3.39 

1.31 

24 


W.  VA  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


It  will  be  noticed  that  in  both  orchards  there  is  very  little 
difference  between  the  weight  of  wood  removed  in  the  heavily 
pruned  and  moderately  pruned  plots  but  that  there  is  quite  a 
difference  in  size  of  terminal  growth  following  the  prunings. 
This  difference  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  greater  part  of  this 
weight  is  composed  of  large  limbs  and  the  heartwood  in  these 
trees  has  little  or  no  effect  upon  their  life  processes.  The 
amount  of  new  wood  removed  influences  the  character  of 
growth,  and  of  this  a much  larger  amount  was  removed  from 
the  heavily  than  from  the  moderately  pruned  blocks. 


Early  Bearing  and  Fruitfulness.  Both  orchards  in  the  ex- 
periment were  old  enough  to  have  produced  a few  fruits  when 

the  experiment  was  begun 
in  1912.  In  the  Grimes 
Golden  orchard  a few  scat- 
tering fruits  were  borne,  but 
as  the  setting  of  these  was 
in  no  wise  affected  by  prun- 
ing no  account  was  taken  of 
them  the  first  year.  In  the 
Lupton  orchard  a few 
blooms  appeared  in  1912  but 
no  fruit  set.  In  1913  a late 
freeze  destroyed  all  fruit  set 
in  both  orchards,  and  no  rec- 
ord regarding  it  could  be 
secured.  In  1914  and  1915 
fruit  was  secured  and  the 
amount  produced  shed  con- 
siderable light  upon  the  ef- 
fect of  pruning  upon  fruit 
production. 

Contrary  to  the  results 
in  the  younger  orchards,  the 
first  crop  secured  was  not 
strikingly  in  favor  of  light 
pruning.  In  fact,  but  little 
difference  was  discernible 
between  any  of  the  plots  in  1914,  light  pruning  yielding 
slightly  the  more  in  one  orchard  and  moderate  pruning  lead- 
ing by  a narrow  margin  in  the  other.  Both  orchards  were  at 
an  age  when  active  bearing  should  have  begun  and  undoubt- 
edly the  entire  loss  of  the  1913  crop  had  a decided  influence  on 
the  formation  of  fruit  buds  for  1914.  It  is  not  only  possible 
but  quite  probable  that  the  loss  of  this  crop  exerted  a greater 
influence  upon  fruit  bud  formation  than  did  the  different  d< 


Fig.  16. — Fruit  Spurs  Formed  on 
Lightly  Pruned  Stayman  Winesap 
Four  Years  Old. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


25 


grees  of  pruning.  In  1915  the  crops  in  the  two  orchards 
showed  marked  uniformity  in  behavior  and  in  each  case  the 
heavier  pruned  plots  yielded  less  than  the  lighter  pruned  plots. 
The  combined  yields  of  both  years  indicate  that  light  pruning 
is  closely  correlated  with  increased  fruitfulness.  In  Table 
XV,  for  ease  in  comparison,  yields  are  shown  in  terms  of  per- 
centage, the  weight  of  the  yields  by  the  heavily  pruned  trees 
being  taken  as  100. 

TABLE  XIII. — Crops  in  1914  and  1915.  (Lupton  Orchard.) 


Type  of  Pruning 

Yeaj 

Apples  214”  and  up 

Apples  0”  - 214” 

Total 

No. 

Per 

Tree 

Total  Wt. 
of  Apples 
Per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

No.  Per 
Tree 

' Wt.  Per 
Tree  in  lbs. 

No.  Per  Wt-  Per 
Tree  Tr,f 

in  lbs. 

Heavy  pruning  

1914 

11.7 

3.47 

.6 

.04 

12.3 

3.51 

Moderate  pruning.... 

1914 

12.2 

3.82 

.6 

.06 

12.8 

3.88 

Light  pruning  

1914 

9. 

2.77 

.77 

.08 

9.77 

2.85 

Heavy  pruning  

1915 

11.9 

4.07 

.7 

.14 

12.6 

4.21 

Moderate  pruning.... 

1915 

22.9 

6.98 

3.9 

.53 

26.8 

7.51 

Light  pruning  

1915 

47.25 

13.43 

9.62 

1.25 

56.87 

14.68 

Heavy  pruning  

Aver- 

11.8 

3.77 

.65 

.09 

12.45 

3.86 

Moderate  pruning.... 

age, 

17.55 

5.4 

2.25 

.3 

19.8 

5.7 

Light  pruning  

both 

28.12 

8.1 

5.2 

.66 

33.22 

8.76 

years  1 

1 

TABLE  XIV. — Crops  in  1914  and  1915.  (Grimes  Golden  Orchard.) 


Type  of  Pruning 

Year 

Apples  2i4”  and  up 

Apples  0”  - 214” 

Total 

No. 

Per 

Tree 

Total  Wt. 
of  Apples 

in  lbs. 

No.  Per 
Tree 

Wt.  Per 
Tree  in  lbs. 

No.  Per 
Tree 

Wt.  Per 
Tree  in 
| lbs. 

Heavy  pruning  

i 1914 

476.2 

132.7 

55.4 

8.9 

529.6 

141.6 

Moderate  pruning.... 

1914 

378.2 

106.3 

45. 

6.5 

423.2 

112.8 

Light  pruning  

1914 

464.4 

142.8 

24. 

3.6 

488.4 

146.4 

Heavy  pruning  

1915 

163.6 

63.77 

4.2 

.57 

167.6 

64.34 

Moderate  pruning.... 

1915 

386.6 

147.94 

18.6 

2.64 

405.2 

150.58 

Light  pruning  

1915 

437.4 

148.22 

17.6 

2.33 

455. 

150.55 

Heavy  pruning  

Aver- 

319.8 

98.24 

29.8 

4.73 

348.6 

102.97 

Moderate  pruning.... 

age,  1 

382.4 

127.12 

31.8 

4.57 

414.2 

131.69 

Light  pruning  

both  | 

450.9 

145.51 

20.8 

2.97 

471.7 

148.48 

years  1 

26 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


TABLE  XV. — Yields  in  1914  and  1915  in  Percentages. 


LUPTON  ORCHARD. 


Type  of  Pruning 

1914 

1915 

Average 

Heavy  

100 

100 

100 

Moderate  

110 

178 

147 

Light  

81 

349 

227 

GRIMES  GOLDEN 

ORCHARD. 

Type  of  Pruning 

1914 

1915 

Average 

Heavy  

100 

100 

100 

Moderate  

79 

234 

127 

Light  

103 

234 

145 

Effects  of  Varying  Degrees  of  Dormant  Pruning 
upon  Bearing  Orchards. 

The  work  in  the  Boyer  orchard  was  designed  to  show  the 
effects  of  pruning  upon  the  vigor  and  productiveness  of  trees 
well  launched  in  their  bearing  period.  As  mentioned  in  the 
general  description  of  the  orchard,  the  trees  were  in  only  a 
fair  condition  of  vigor  at  the  beginning  of  the  test,  but  were 
not  in  need  of  what  is  generally  called  rejuvenation. 

Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth.  The  terminal 
growth  in  this  instance  behaved  in  much  the  same  manner  as 
in  the  younger  orchards.  There  can  be  no  possibility  for 
doubting  that  heavy  pruning  produces  rank  terminal  shoots 
which  give  the  appearance,  at  least,  of  strong  vigor.  No 
growth  measurements  were  made  in  this  orchard  or  in  the 
Grimes  Golden  and  Lupton  orchards  other  than  to  get  the 
average  length  and  thickness  of  the  main  terminal  extensions. 
It  was  thought  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  that  this 
would  make  a fair  index  of  tree  growth,  but  the  authors  know 
that  such  is  not  the  case  with  young  trees  at  any  rate  for  in 
the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard  the  lightly  pruned  trees  with 
comparatively  short  terminals  produced  greater  total  growth. 
With  the  present  knowledge  it  can  only  be  surmised  that  it 
may  also  prove  a poor  index  of  vigor  for  bearing  trees.  These 
growth  measurements  together  with  records  of  wood  annually 
removed  are  set  forth  in  Table  XVI. 

The  large  amount  of  wood  removed  from  the  heavily 
pruned  Arkansas  block  is  partly  due  to  a few  broken  limbs 
that  were  removed.  The  Arkansas  block  responded  much 
more  actively  to  pruning  than  did  the  York  Imperial  block. 

Fruit  Production.  In  the  production  of  fruit,  conclusions 
must  be  based  upon  two  crops  of  Arkansas  and  one  heavy 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


27 


Fig.  17. — Arkansas  Tree  Before  Priming  at  the  Beginning  of  the 

Experiment. 


Fig.  18. — Same  Tree  as  Shown  in  Fig.  17  After  Receiving  Heavy 
Dormant  Pruning  at  the  Beginning  of  the  Experiment. 


28 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


TABLE  XVI. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and 
Amount  of  Wood  Removed. 


Arkansas 

York  Imperial 

Heavy 

Pruning 

Moder- 

ate 

Pruning 

Light 

Pruning 

Heavy 

Pruning 

Moder- 

ate 

Pruning 

Light 

Pruning 

Length  in  inches,  1911 
growth  

4.08 

4.06 

4.21 

4.06 

3.92 

4.69 

Average  growth  in  inches, 
1912-’15  

9.17 

8.5 

7.1 

5.2 

4.92 

4.09 

Diameter  in  inches,  1911 
growth  

.156 

.149 

.158 

.153 

.152 

.174 

Ave.  diameter  in  inches, 
1912-’15  growth  

.189 

.181 

.17 

.137 

.126 

.128 

Wood  per  tree  annually 
removed  in  lbs.  1912-’15.. 

21.79 

8.33 

5.26 

8.89 

j 8.28 

5.46 

crop  of  York  Imperial.  The  latter  variety  fruited  so  heavily 
in  1914  that  it  produced  no  fruit  at  all  the  following  year.  As 
previously  mentioned  the  freeze  in  1913  destroyed  all  the 
crop  in  the  region  of  this  experiment,  and  while  a light  crop 
badly  affected  with  cedar  rust  was  borne  in  1912  no  records 
regarding  it  were  taken  since  its  formation  was  not  affected  by 
the  pruning  of  that  year.  The  yields  as  recorded  in  Table 
XVII  show  some  interesting  departures  from  those  of  the 
younger  orchards. 


TABLE  XVII.— Yields  of  Fruit  (Boyer  Orchard). 


Arkansas  1914-’ 15  Crops 

York  Ii 

nperial  1914  Crop 

Heavy 

Pruning 

| Moder- 
ate 

| I’runing 

Light 
j Pruning 

Heavy 

Pruning 

! Moder 
ate 

1 Pruning 

Light 

Pruning 

Bushels  apples  per  tree, 
diameter  over  2*4  in 

9.53 

8.05 

7.73 

1 

1 

| 11.9 

9.95 

7.9 

Bushels  apples  per  tree, 
diameter  under  2*/4  in 

.12 

.15 

.16 

2.12 

1.99 

1.25 

Total  bushels  apples  per 
tree  

9.65 

8.2 

7.89 

14.02 

11.94  | 

9.15 

In  this  case  we  have  an  exact  reversal  of  fruiting  habits 
from  those  in  the  younger  trees.  Both  the  Arkansas  and  the 
York  Imperial  varieties  produced  distinctly  larger  crops  on 
the  heavily  pruned  blocks  than  on  the  lightly  pruned  blocks. 
This  sharp  distinction  in  bearing  habits  between  vigorous 
young  trees  and  middle-aged  trees  of  subnormal  vigor  is  of 
interest.  (“Middle-aged”  is  only  a relative  term.  In  New 
York  where  apples  are  still  in  their  prime  at  thirty-five  years 
of  age,  fifteen-year-old  trees  would  be  considered  young.  In 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


29 


the  Shenandoah  valley  the  commercial  orchards  generally 
start  their  decline  at  twenty-five  to  thirty  years  of  age  and  fif- 
teen to  twenty  years  is  truly  a middle  age.)  We  know  that 
neglected  orchards  which  have  not  produced  crops  of  any 
consequence  for  years  will  frequently  be  greatly  benefited 
and  stimulated  into  fruit  production  by  a heavy  pruning.  To 
be  sure  such  trees  are  abnormal,  but  it  will  be  noticed  that 
the  trees  in  this  orchard  made  but  four  inches  of  terminal 
growth  the  year  before  the  experiment  began,  and  that  since 
that  time  they  have  averaged  from  seven  to  nine  inches  for 
one  variety  and  from  four  to  five  for  the  other.  This  result 
would  indicate  that  at  the  beginning  the  trees  were  somewhat 
below  normal  in  vigor,  but  under  better  cultural  methods 
their  average  condition  had  improved.  The  writers  are  of 
the  opinion  that,  from  the  standpoint  of  fruit  production,  vig- 
orously growing  trees  would  have  made  a somewhat  different 
response  to  the  treatment  than  did  the  ones  in  the  test. 


PART  II. — The  Effects  of  Seasonal  Pruning  upon  the 
Growth  and  Fruitfulness  of  Trees  of  Different  Ages. 


It  is  surprising  when  reviewing  the  literature  on  this  sub- 
ject to  find  how  few  careful  experiments  have  ever  been  car- 
ried on  from  which  to  base  our  ideas  and  teachings  of  the  value 
of  summer  pruning.  The  experimental  data  which  we  do  have 
lack  unity  and  the  results  are  often  contradictory.  Batchelor 
and  Goodspeed*  of  Utah  in  their  summary  of  a recent  publica- 
tion entitled  “The  Summer  Pruning  of  a Young  Bearing  Apple 
Orchard”  have  the  following  to  say  regarding  the  summer 
pruning : 

“Trees  pruned  during  dormant  period  and  also  during 
the  summer  produced  a greater  annual  twig  growth  than 
trees  pruned  during  the  dormant  season  only. 

“Rubbing  the  water  shoots  out  of  the  center  of  the  tree 
from  time  to  time  during  the  summer  had  little  or  no  influence 
on  crop  production.  These  shoots  are  removed  more  readily 
and  cheaply,  however,  during  this  season. 

“The  summer  pruned  trees  averaged  less  marketable  fruit 
per  tree  than  either  the  winter  pruned  or  unpruned  trees. 

“Summer  pruning  in  this  orchard  has  proven  neither  prof- 
itable nor  successful  in  increasing  crop  yields. 

♦Batchelor,  L.  D.  and  Goodspeed,  W.  E.,  Utah  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  140,  1915. 


30 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


“Although  the  investigation  is  only  in  its  first  stages 
there  seems  to  be  a correlation  between  regular  bearing  and 
summer  pruning. 

“Summer  pruning  throughout  a period  of  two  months  be- 
tween the  third  week  in  June  and  the  third  week  in  August 
produced  much  the  same  results.” 

Vincent1  in  Idaho  found  that  the  average  yields  for  the 
first  four  crops  of  trees  given  annual  summer  pruning  only 
were  greatly  increased  in  the  case  of  some  varieties,  while 
with  others  this  increase  was  slight  and  there  was  very  little 
difference  between  the  yields  of  summer  and  winter  pruned 
trees.  Wagener  showed  111  percent  increase  in  yield  where 
summer  pruned,  Grimes  52.8  percent,  Jonathan  2.4  percent, 
and  Rome  1.6  percent.  Color  of  fruit  was  much  better  from 
the  summer  pruned  trees. 

Drinkard2  working  with  dwarf  trees  in  Virginia  found 
that,  although  summer  pruning  in  the  latter  part  of  June 
checked  wood  growth,  fruit  bud  formation  was  greatly  stimu- 
lated by  the  practice. 

Dickens3,  in  Kansas,  by  summer  pruning  was  able  to 
make  ten-year-old  apple  trees  bear  satisfactory  crops.  Prior 
to  the  summer  pruning  these  trees  had  borne  very  little. 

Papers  on  “The  Summer  Pruning  of  Fruit  Trees”  by  fruit 
growers  and  horticulturists  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  So- 
ciety4 in  England  showed  that,  while  there  was  a difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  value  of  summer  pruning,  as  a whole  the 
consensus  of  opinion  was  that  summer  pruning  was  uncertain 
in  its  effects  and  that  the  operation  was  of  doubtful  practica- 
bility. Much  depended  on  soil,  climate,  moisture,  varieties, 
stocks,  and  time  of  the  operations. 

Opinions  of  166  fruit  growers  and  gardeners  in  the  Brit- 
ish Isles,  compiled  by  the  Gardener’s  Chronicle5  show  that 
while  140  had  from  fair  to  very  good  results  from  summer 
pruning  of  pome  fruits,  26  were  doubtful  of  its  practicability 
and  value. 

Spencer  Pickering6  of  the  Woburn  Experimental  Farm, 
England,  reported  in  Science  Progress  that,  although  the  evi- 
dence was  still  inconclusive,  ordinary  annual  summer  pruning 
had  caused  no  appreciable  results  in  fruiting  or  vigor  of  the 
apple  and  that  pinching,  bending,  etc.,  were  uncertain  and 
depended  on  weather  conditions  following  the  operations. 

1  Vincent,  C.  C.,  Idaho  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  84,  p.  25,  1915. 

1 Vincent,  C.  C.,  Rept.  Proc.  Fruit  Products  Congress,  Spokane,  Wash.,  Nov. 
16-21,  1914,  pp.  5-6. 

2 Drinkard,  A.  W.,  Virginia  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Tech.  Bull.  5,  pp.  111-12,  1915. 

3 Dickens,  A.,  Kansas  Sta.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  136,  1906. 

4 The  Journal  Royal  Horticultural  Society,  Vol.  33,  Part  2,  pp.  487-499,  1908. 

5 The  Gardener’s  Chronicle,  Third  Series,  Vol.  41,  pp.  400-403  ; 406-7,  1907. 

c Science  Progress,  Vol.  7,  No.  27,  p.  397,  1913. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


31 


It  can  be  seen  from  the  preceding  statements  that  the  re- 
sults from  summer  pruning  are  not  always  similar.  Several 
different  factors,  such  as  the  vigor  of  the  tree,  the  time  of 
pruning,  the  character  of  the  pruning,  the  season,  the  soil,  and 
many  others  enter  in  to  influence  the  results. 

It  is  doubtful  if  any  very  general  recommendations  can 
ever  be  made  regarding  summer  pruning  and  although  the  au- 
thors realize  that  criticisms  can  be  made  on  their  work,  it  is 
presented  with  the  hope  that  it  will  add  a little  more  definite 
information  on  this  subject. 

Outline  and  Plans  of  the  West  Virginia  Experiments. 

Summer  pruning  alone  and  in  combination  with  winter 
pruning  was  carried  on  in  all  of  the  orchards  previously  de- 
scribed, except  the  Berkeley  Springs  orchard.  Table  I shows 
the  various  combinations  that  were  used. 

The  character  of  the  summer  pruning  only  was  about  the 
same  as  was  that  of  the  moderate  dormant  pruning,  the  only 
difference  being  the  date  on  which  it  was  done.  The  character 
of  the  summer  pruning  has  been  described  on  page  seven.  In 
the  case  of  the  winter  and  summer  pruning,  the  trees  were 
headed  back  in  the  winter  and  about  one-half  of  the  wood 
was  thinned  out.  In  the  summer  time,  the  other  half  of  the 
wood  was  thinned  out  and  the  suckers  were  removed.  In  the 
case  of  the  repeated  summer  pruning  it  was  attempted  to  do 
about  the  same  amount  of  pruning  at  each  date.  The  sum  of 
these  two  prunings  made  about  the  same  as  the  moderate  dor- 
mant pruning  and  left  the  trees  pruned  in  about  the  same  man- 
ner as  regards  shape,  etc.  Dates  at  which  these  prunings 
were  made  are  shown  on  page  seven. 

The  Effects  of  Seasonal  Pruning  upon  the  First 
Five  Years’  Growth  of  Trees. 

Data  on  this  phase  of  the  work  were  secured  entirely  from 
the  Sheets  orchard.  As  suggested  on  page  four,  conditions  in 
this  orchard  were  not  as  uniform  as  we  wished  to  have  them. 
It  was  necessary  to  discard  several  of  the  original  trees  due 
to  differences  in  their  ages,  and  as  a result  of  this  only  twenty- 
three  trees  were  left  in  the  experiment.  The  varieties  of  York 
Imperial,  Grimes,  and  Rome  were  included  in  this  test.  In  as 
much  as  all  of  the  varieties  responded  similarly,  the  results 
have  been  grouped  for  comparison  in  the  following  tables. 
The  summer  pruning  on  these  trees  was  done  each  year  dur- 
ing the  first  week  of  July.  Varying  degrees  of  dormant  prun- 
ing were  done  as  previously  described.  Very  little  yearly  data 
were  secured  on  these  trees  with  the  exception  of  that  of  the 


32 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


past  year,  as  the  main  object  was  to  note  the  effect  of  the 
pruning  upon  fruitfulness. 

Character  of  the  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Amount 
of  Wood  Removed.  In  order  to  get  some  data  regarding  the 
effect  of  several  years’  annual  seasonal  pruning  upon  terminal 
growth,  several  measurements  were  made  upon  all  the  trees 
at  the  close  of  the  growth  in  1915.  The  experiment  had  then 
been  running  for  five  years. 


TABLE  XVIII. — Average  Length  of  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight 
of  Wood  Removed  per  Tree. 


Method  of  Pruning 

No. 

of 

Trees 

Av.  Length 
of  Terminal 
Growth  in 
Inches 
1915 

Weight  Removed  in  Lbs. 

per  Tree 

1913 

1914 

1915 

Three- Year 
Average 

Heavy  dormant  

7 

23.5 

2.57 

2.26 

1.36 

2.06 

Moderate  dormant  

5 

13.5 

2.25 

1.6 

.68 

1.51 

Light  dormant  

6 

9.9 

1.46 

1.5 

.54 

1.17 

Summer  pruning  

5 

13.1 

3.6 

2.45 

2.1 

2.71 

These  results  show  that  the  trees  pruned  heavily  in  the 
dormant  season  made  by  far  the  longest  average  terminal 
growth.  The  summer  pruned  trees  made  a longer  growth  than 
the  trees  pruned  lightly  in  the  dormant  season,  but  did  not 
make  quite  as  much  growth  as  did  the  moderately  pruned 
trees. 

It  is  seen  that  the  three-year  average  weight  of  wood  re- 
moved per  tree  was  largest  in  the  case  of  the  summer  pruned 
trees.  This,  however,  is  not  a very  exact  or  fair  comparison  as 
a large  amount  of  this  weight  was  made  up  of  leaves.  The 
actual  pruning  of  the  trees  was  about  comparable  to  that  of 
the  moderately  pruned  ones. 

Total  Length  of  Annual  Growth.  In  1915  the  total  length 
of  new  longitudinal  growth  produced  on  all  of  the  trees  was 
measured.  These  measurements  give  us  some  idea  of  the 
vigor  of  the  trees  and  are  an  indication  of  the  volume  of  new 
wood  produced. 

TABLE  XIX. — Average  Length  per  Tree  of  Longitudinal 
Growth  in  1915. 

Heavy  Moderate  Light  Summer 
Dormant  Dormant  Dormant  Pruning 

Total  longitudinal  growth 

produced  in  feet 216  187  188  120 

Table  XIX  shows  that  summer  pruning  has  checked  de- 
cidedly the  growth  of  the  trees  as  regards  total  amount  of  new 
wood  produced. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


33 


Circumference  of  Trunks  and  Size  and  Form  of  Trees. 

Although  Table  XVIII  and  Table  XIX  show  that  summer 
pruning  has  checked  the  growth  of  the  trees  as  far  as  terminal 
and  total  annual  growths  are  concerned,  it  is  interesting  to 
know  what  effect  the  summer  pruning  had  upon  the  stockiness 
of  the  trees,  and  their  size,  and  form.  Measurements  regard- 
ing these  points  were  taken  on  all  the  trees  in  1915. 

TABLE  XX. — Circumference  of  Trunks  and  Height  and 
Width  of  Trees. 


Circumference  Av.  Height  Av.  Width 

Method  of  Pruning  ~0’  °‘  of  Trunks  in  ot  Tree  of  Tree 

“ees  Inches  in  Feet  in  Feet 

Heavy  dormant  7 8.46  8.55  4.83 

Moderate  dormant  5 9.62  9.73  6.17 

Light  dormant  6 9.91  10.5  7.1 

Summer  pruning  5 9.2  9.7  6.3 


It  can  be  seen  from  Table  XX  that  the  trees  pruned  mod- 
erately or  lightly  during  the  dormant  season  have  larger 
trunks  than  do  the  summer  pruned  ones.  In  the  case  of  the 
continued  heavy  dormant  pruning,  which  method  we  do  not 
recommend,  the  trunks  are  smaller  than  those  of  the  summer 
pruned  trees.  As  regards  the  height  and  width  of  the  trees, 
it  can  be  seen  that  the  summer  pruned  trees  are  very  similar 
to  the  moderate  dormant  pruned  trees  in  this  respect.  The 
summer  pruned  trees  are  larger  than  the  heavy  dormant 
pruned  ones,  but  smaller  than  the  light  dormant  pruned  trees. 

Early  Bearing.  From  Tables  XVIII,  XIX,  and  XX  it 
can  be  seen  that  the  summer  pruned  trees  made  nearly  as  long 
average  terminal  growths  as  the  moderate  dormant  pruned 
ones,  but  that  the  total  amount  of  longitudinal  growth  was 
less  and  that  the  trunks  of  the  trees  were  smaller.  The  height 
and  width  of  the  trees  were  about  the  same  in  these  two  cases. 
It  is  interesting  now  to  know  what  influence  summer  pruning 
has  had  upon  early  bearing.  Although  only  a few  fruits  have 
been  produced  up  to  this  time,  blooming  data  have  been  se- 
cured each  year  and  also  the  percentage  of  fruit  buds  for  1916. 


TABLE  XXI. — Effect  of  Pruning  upon  Early  Bearing. 


Method  of  Pruning 

Bloom 
Clusters  per 
Tree  in 

1914 

Fruits 
per  Tree 
in  1914 

Bloom 
Clusters  per 
Tree  in 

1915 

Fruits  per  Tree  in  1915 
Number  Wt.  (lbs) 

Percent 
Eruit  Buds 
per  Tree 
1916 

Heavy  dormant 

.14 

0 

1.86 

.7 

.25 

3.7 

Moderate  dormant.. 

3.4 

.2 

40. 

12.2 

3.35 

20.0 

Light  dormant  

15.5 

2.0 

175. 

24. 

6.64 

38.0 

Summer  pruning  .... 

0 

0 

39. 

.33 

.08 

10.4 

34 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


Table  XXI  shows  that  the  light  dormant  pruning  caused 
the  trees  to  come  into  bearing  earlier  and  to  produce  consid- 
erably more  fruit  than  did  any  of  the  other  methods  of  prun- 
ing. The  summer  pruned  trees  did  not  bear  as  early  nor  did 
they  produce  as  much  fruit  in  1914  and  1915  as  did  any  of  the 
modifications  of  dormant  pruning.  The  percentage  of  fruit 
buds  set  for  the  1916  crop  on  the  moderate  and  light  dormant 
pruned  trees  greatly  exceeds  that  for  the  summer  pruned 
trees.  In  this  experiment,  summer  pruning  has  checked  tree 
growth  and  has  delayed  and  decreased  fruit  production. 

Effects  of  Seasonal  Pruning  upon  Orchards 
Just  Attaining  Bearing  Age. 

Information  upon  this  phase  of  the  work  was  secured 
from  the  Lupton  and  Grimes  Golden  orchards.  The  variety 
used  in  each  of  these  orchards  was  the  York  Imperial.  Forty- 
five  trees  of  five  each  in  a plot  were  used  in  the  Grimes  Golden 
orchard,  while  there  were  ninety  trees  of  ten  in  a plot  in  the 


Fig.  19. — York  Imperial  Tree  in  Lup-  Fig.  20. — Same  Tree  as  Shown  in 
ton  Orchard  Before  Summer  Fig.  19  After  Summer 

Pruning.  Pruning. 

Lupton  orchard.  It  was  necessary  for  various  reasons  to  dis- 
card certain  trees  from  each  orchard  during  the  experiment 
and  as  a result  there  were  left  37  trees  in  the  Grimes  Golden 
orchard  and  88  in  the  Lupton  orchard  which  are  here  reported 
on.  Trees  in  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  were  seven  years  old 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  while  those  in  the  Lupton 
orchard  were  six.  In  these  orchards  varying  degrees  of  dor- 


July,  1916]  VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING  35 

mant  pruning,  dormant  and  summer  pruning,  and  summer 
pruning  only  were  carried  on. 

By  referring  to  Table  I and  to  the  discussion  under  “Defi- 
nition of  Treatment”  on  page  seven,  a fuller  explanation  of  the 
experiments  can  be  found. 

Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight  of 
Wood  Removed.  The  length  and  diameter  of  the  terminal 
growth*  of  each  tree  in  the  experiment  were  taken  in  the  spring 
of  1911,  in  order  to  show  the  condition  of  the  trees  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  experiment.  These  measurements  have  been 
continued  each  year  until  the  present  time  and  the  averages 
for  the  years  1912  to  1915  inclusive  are  shown  in  the  accom- 
panying table.  The  amount  of  wood  removed  at  each  pruning 
has  been  weighed  and  the  weights  are  likewise  shown. 

TABLE  XXII. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight 
of  Wood  Removed  (Lupton  Orchard). 


Method  of  Pruning 

Average  Length  of 
Terminal  Growth 

Average  Diameter  of 
of  Terminal  Growth 

Weight  of  Wood 
Removed  in 
lbs. 

1912-’15 

1911 

1912-T5 

1911 

1912-T5 

Heavy  dormant 

7.87 

15.87 

.159 

.218 

3.87 

Moderate  dormant  

7.30 

10.74 

.156 

.181 

3.39 

Light  dormant  

7.75 

8.37 

.166 

.166 

1.31 

Heavy  dormant  and 

1 

early  summer  

8.65 

15.99 

.172 

.212 

4.83 

Moderate  dormant  and 

early  summer  

8.50 

13.45 

.18 

.193 

8.50 

Early  summer  only 

8.29  ! 

! 10.48 

.174 

.177 

7.05 

Midsummer  only  

7.31  ! 

1 8.83 

.17 

.17 

5.87 

Repeated  summer  

7.78 

8.55 

.172 

.167 

6.32 

(1913) 

(1914-15) 

Ringing  

9.86  | 

6.63 

.174 

.157 

4.69 

A study  of  Table  XXII  shows  that  in  the  Lupton  orchard 
where  early  summer  pruning  has  been  used  in  connection  with 
heavy  and  moderate  dormant  pruning  (plots  four  and  five), 
the  length  and  diameter  of  the  terminal  growth  have  been 
slightly  increased  over  plots  one  and  two  where  no  summer 
pruning  was  used.  However,  this  slight  increase  may  well 
be  due  to  chance,  as  it  will  be  noticed  that  where  early  summer 
pruning  alone  was  used  (plot  six)  the  resulting  terminal 
growth  was  neither  as  long  nor  as  thick  as  was  that  resulting 
where  only  the  moderate  or  heavy  dormant  pruning  was  used. 
Neither  was  this  beneficial  effect  noted  in  the  Grimes  Golden 
orchard. 


Ten  measurements  were  made  on  each  tree  in  the  experiment. 


36 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15& 


In  the  plots  where  midsummer  or  repeated  summer  prim- 
ings were  given,  both  the  length  and  thickness  of  the  resulting 
terminal  growths  were  considerably  reduced.  Ringing  also 
had  a decidedly  detrimental  effect  upon  the  resulting  growth. 

TABLE  XXIII. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Weight  of 
Wood  Removed  (Grimes  Golden  Orchard). 


Method  ol  Pruning 

Average  Length  ol 
Terminal  Growth 

Average  Diameter  ol 
Terminal  Growth 

Weight  ol  Wood 

1911 

! 1912-’15 

1911 

1912-’15 

Removed  in  lbs. 
1912-’15 

Heavy  dormant  

12.41 

1 

j 14.79 

.214 

.215 

8.37 

Moderate  dormant  

14.42 

1 12.68 

.211 

.18 

7.81 

Light  dormant  

Heavy  dormant  and 

15. 

| 11.36 

.22 

.172 

3.78 

early  summer  

Moderate  dormant  and 

14.5 

13.62 

.214 

.205 

17.09 

early  summer  

13.26 

10.71 

.199 

.162 

7.68 

Early  summer  only 

14.72 

12.18 

.214 

.182 

10.59 

Midsummer  only  

13.59 

11.31 

.202 

.169 

11.36 

Repeated  summer  

14.91 

11.56 

.219 

.174 

12.01 

Ringing  

16.96 



9.95 

.212 

.152 

9.54 

In  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  (Table  XXIII)  heavy  or 
moderate  dormant  pruning  caused  a larger  terminal  growth 
than  any  of  the  other  treatments.  In  this  case,  the  early  sum- 
mer pruning,  instead  of  being  beneficial  when  used  in  connec- 
tion with  the  heavy  and  moderate  dormant  pruning,  seemed 
to  be  detrimental.  In  this  orchard  as  in  the  Lupton  orchard,, 
early  summer  pruning  alone  was  not  as  beneficial  as  either  the 
heavy  or  moderate  dormant  pruning  when  used  alone.  Al- 
though the  midsummer  and  repeated  summer  pruning  did  not 
appear  to  retard  the  terminal  growth  as  much  in  this  orchard 
as  in  the  Lupton  orchard,  still  they  noticeably  retarded  growth 
when  compared  to  dormant  pruning  only.  Ringing  in  this  or- 
chard seriously  affected  terminal  growth  as  it  did  in  the  Lup- 
ton orchard. 

Although  trees  pruned  in  the  summer  appear  to  have  had 
more  weight  removed  than  did  the  dormant  pruned  ones,  a 
large  proportion  of  this  weight  was  leaves.  The  summer 
pruning,  as  previously  stated,  was  about  the  same  in  amount 
and  degree  as  the  moderate  dormant  pruning. 

Increase  in  Trunk  Circumference.  At  the  close  of  the 
1914  season  the  circumference  of  the  tree  trunks  half  way  be- 
tween the  head  and  the  ground  was  measured  on  each  tree  in 
the  Grimes  Golden  orchard.  These  same  trees  were  measured 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


37 


at  the  close  of  the  1915  season  in  order  to  find  if  the  seasonal 
pruning  had  exerted  any  influence  on  the  increase  in  trunk 
measurement. 

TABLE  XXIV. — Increase  in  One  Year  in  Circumference  of  Trunks 
Due  to  Seasonal  Pruning. 

Increase  in  Trunk 


Method  of  Pruning  Circumference  in  Inches 

Heavy  dormant  2.2 

Moderate  dormant  2.15 

Light  dormant  2.15 

Heavy  dormant  and  early  summer 2. 

Moderate  dormant  and  early  summer 2. 

Early  summer  ; 2.2 

Midsummer  1.95 

Repeated  summer  1.88 

Ringing  1.95 


The  results  show  that  midsummer  and  repeated  summer 
pruning  retard  the  growth  of  the  tree  trunks  in  much  the  same 
way  as  they  did  the  terminal  growth. 

When  early  summer  pruning  was  used  in  connection  with 
heavy  and  moderate  dormant  pruning,  the  increase  in  trunk 
was  not  as  large  as  in  those  cases  where  the  dormant  pruning 
was  used  alone.  This  is  similar  to  the  effects  produced  on 
terminal  growth  as  shown  in  Tables  XXII  and  XXIII.  When 
used  alone  early  summer  pruning  gave  satisfactory  increase. 

Effect  of  Seasonal  Pruning  on  Size  of  Leaves,  Color  of 
Foliage,  and  Total  Amount  of  Foliage.  Differences  in  foliage 
were  so  plainly  noticeable  in  the  different  pruning  plots  at 
picking  time  (October,  1915)  that  careful  measurements  and 
counts  were  made  of  the  leaves  on  the  different  trees  in  the 
several  plots.  In  securing  the  length  and  width  of  the  leaves, 
fifty  were  selected  from  each  tree  and  measured.  These  meas- 
urements for  all  trees  in  each  block  were  then  averaged  and 
the  results  taken  as  the  average  size  of  leaves  for  that  block. 
The  area  of  the  leaf  was  found  by  multiplying  the  length 
by  seven-tenths  of  the  width.  In  finding  the  total  number  of 
leaves  per  tree,  one  tree  was  taken  as  representing  the  ideal 
in  size  and  denseness  of  foliage  and  considered  as  100  in 
size  and  number  of  leaves.  . The  total  number  of  leaves  on  this 
tree  was  then  counted  for  use  as  a basis  in  comparing  the  other 
trees.  All  of  the  remaining  trees  were  then  compared  to  the 
ideal  tree  in  size  and  in  number  of  leaves  and  given  a certain 
percentage  rating.  By  comparing  these  percentages  to  the 
ideal  we  were  able  to  get  quite  accurately  the  total  number 
of  leaves  per  tree.  The  total  number  of  leaves  found  for  all 
trees  in  each  plot  was  then  averaged  to  find  the  average  num- 


38 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


ber  of  leaves  per  tree  in  each  plot.  By  multiplying  the  aver- 
age number  of  leaves  per  tree  by  the  average  area  per  leaf,  the 
total  average  area  of  leaf  surface  per  tree  in  each  plot  was 
obtained. 


TABLE  XXV. — Size  of  Leaves  and  Total  Area  of  Leaves  per  Tree  as 
Affected  by  Seasonal  Pruning  (Lupton  Orchard). 


Method  of  Pruning 

Ave.  Length 
o(  Leaves 
in  Inches 

Ave.  Width 
of  Leaves 
in  Inehes 

Area  ol 
Leaves  in 
Sq.  Inches 

Total  No. 
ol  Leaves 
Per  Tree 

Total  Area 
per  Tree 
Sq.  Ft. 

Rank 

Heavy  dormant  

2.60 

1.52 

2.77 

31,755 

610.8 

1 

Moderate  dormant .. 

2.46 

1.38 

2.37 

26,263 

432.2 

4 

Light  dormant 

Heavy  dormant  and 

2.3 

| 1.8 

2.1 

28,718 

418.7 

5 

early  summer  i 

Mod.  dormant  and 

2.48  j 

L54 

2.67 

28,290 

524.5 

2 

early  summer  

2.29 

1.33 

2.13 

30,473 

450.7 

3 

Early  summer  

2.34 

1.39 

2.28 

24,253 

384. 

6 

Midsummer  

2.36 

1.32 

2.18 

18,760 

284. 

9 

Repeated  summer.... 

2.28 

1.3 

2.07 

20,689 

297.4 

8 

Ringing  

2.26 

1.27 

1.91 

24,588 

325.4 

7 

TABLE  XXVI. — Size  of  Leaves  and  Total  Area  of  Leaves  per  Tree  as 
Affected  by  Seasonal  Pruning  (Grimes  Golden  Orchard). 


Method  ol  Pruning 

Ave.  Length 
ol  Leaves 
in  Inches 

Ave.  Width 
ol  Leaves 
in  Inches 

Area  ol 
Leaves  in 
Sq  Inches 

Total  No. 
ol  Leaves 
per  Tree 

Total  Area 
per  Tree 
Sq.  Ft. 

Rank 

Heavy  dormant 

3.57 

2.0 

4.99 

36,309 

1143.8 

1 

Moderate  dormant .. 

3.51 

1.7 

4.18 

31,403 

911.5 

2 

Light  dormant 

Heavy  dormant  and 

3.1 

1.62 

3.52 

26,987 

659.6 

4 

early  summer 

Mod.  dormant  and 

3.23 

1.69 

3.82 

29,931 

794.0 

3 

early  summer 

1 3.17 

1.7 

3.77 

20,117 

526.6 

6 

Early  summer 

2.73 

1.6 

3.06 

21,589 

458.7 

8 

Midsummer  

2.8 

1.47 

2.88 

24,042 

480.8 

7 

Repeated  summer.... 

2.54 

1.36 

2.42 

17,787 

298.9 

9 

Ringing  

2.94 

1.64 

3.38 

23,061 

541.2 

5 

Tables  XXV  and  XXVI  give  in  tabular  form  the  size  of 
leaves  per  tree,  total  number  of  leaves  per  tree,  total  leaf  area 
per  tree,  and  the  rank  of  each  plot  based  upon  the  total  leaf 
area  per  tree.  It  is  plainly  noticeable  that  the  trees  pruned 
during  the  dormant  season  had  by  far  the  larger  leaves  and 
the  greater  number  of  leaves.  In  contrast  to  this  the  trees 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


39 


which  had  been  summer  pruned  only  produced  the  smaller 
leaves  and  ranked  lower  regarding  total  number  of  leaves  and 
area  of  foliage.  Early  summer  pruning  in  connection  with 
dormant  pruning  retarded  leaf  development  somewhat  and 
when  used  alone  did  not  produce  as  good  results  as  did  the 
moderate  dormant  pruning.  These  results  are  similar  to  those 
found  in  Tables  XXH,  XXIII,  and  XXIV  where  its  effects  on 
terminal  growth  and  trunk  increase  were  noted.  It  will  be  no- 
ticed that,  although  the  first  five  plots  in  each  orchard  vary 
a little  in  their  order  of  rank,  they  all  place  ahead  of  early 
summer  pruning.  The  next  three  plots  of  summer  pruning 
all  fall  in  the  lowest  ranks. 

Color  of  Foliage.  Differences  in  color  of  the  foliage  were 
likewise  very  noticeable  at  this  date  (October)  but  earlier  in 
the  season  no  striking  differences  were  discernible.  In  all 
cases  those  trees  which  had  been  pruned  during  the  dormant 
season  or  with  some  modification  of  the  dormant  season  prun- 
ing had  a darker  green  and  healthier  looking  foliage.  The 
leaves  of  the  midsummer  and  repeated  summer  pruned  trees 
had  turned  a yellowish  green  color  and  presented  a much  less 
vigorous  appearance. 

It  is  impossible  to  explain  definitely  these  striking  differ- 
ences in  foliage.  We  know  that  the  leaves,  under  the  action  of 
chlorophyll,  transform  the  raw  materials,  brought  them  from 
the  roots,  into  plant  food.  It  is  also  understood  that  some  of 
this  plant  food  is  then  stored  in  the  main  branches  and  smaller 
twigs  where  the  tree  can  draw  upon  it  in  the  future.  By  sum- 
mer pruning  not  only  are  large  numbers  of  these  active  leaves 
removed  but  probably  much  stored  food  in  the  limbs  and 
twigs  is  also  removed.  It  is  very  probable  that  by  destroying 
many  of  the  manufacturing  parts  of  the  plant  and  removing 
some  stored  up  food  that  these  effects  will  be  noticed  in  the  re- 
duced leaf  area  the  following  year. 

The  change  in  color  of  the  foliage  is  still  harder  to  ex- 
plain. It  may  be  that  due  to  the  weaker  condition  of  the  sum- 
mer pruned  trees,  as  evidenced  by  lessened  terminal  growths, 
small  tree  trunks,  less  foliage,  etc.,  the  leaves  of  the  summer 
pruned  trees  had  passed  through  their  cycle  of  activity  earlier 
than  the  leaves  on  the  dormant  pruned,  more  healthy  trees. 
These  activities  were  probably  followed  by  a breaking  down 
of  the  chlorophyll  which  would  be  reflected  by  a diminishing 
of  the  dark  green  color.* 

Early  Bearing  and  Fruitfulness.  Having  seen  that  sum- 
mer pruning  has  acted  as  a check  on  the  growth  and  develop- 

*In  future  investigations  on  this  subject  it  would  be  highly  advantageous  to 
make  quantitative  determinations  of  the  chlorophyll  present  in  the  leaves. 


40 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


ment  of  young  trees  just  coming  into  bearing,  let  us  see  what 
effect  summer  pruning  has  had  upon  the  first  crop  of  such 
trees.  As  stated  on  page  twenty-four,  there  were  a few 
blooms  on  each  orchard  in  1912,  following  the  year  that  the 
experiment  was  begun.  As  the  setting  of  these  was  not  af- 
fected by  pruning  and  since  so  few  of  them  did  set,  no  account 
of  them  was  taken.  Unfortunately,  a late  freeze  in  1913  de- 
stroyed all  fruit  set  in  both  orchards,  so  no  record  of  the  crop 
could  be  secured  in  that  year.  However,  in  1914  and  1915 
there  was  fruit  in  both  orchards  and  some  interesting  data 
were  secured  concerning  the  effects  of  seasonal  pruning  on  the 
first  crop  of  young  orchards. 


TABLE  XXVII.— Crop  in  1914  (Lupton  Orchard). 


Apples  214”  and  Up 

Apples  C 

>-214" 

Total 

Total  Wt. 

Method  ol  Pruning 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree.  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

Number 

per 

Tree 

of  Apples 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

11.7 

.3.47 

.6 

.04 

12.3 

3.51 

Moderate  dormant  .... 

12.2 

3.82 

.6 

.06 

12.8 

3.88 

Light  dormant  

Heavy  dormant  and 

9. 

2.77 

.77 

.08 

9.77 

2.85 

early  summer  

Mod.  dormant  and 

2.4 

.77 

.3 

.03 

2.7 

.81 

early  summer  

16.4 

5.45 

1.1 

.12 

17.5 

5.57 

Early  summer  

11.6 

3.62 

.9 

.11 

12.5 

3.73 

Midsummer  

5.4 

1.73 

.5 

.06 

5.9 

1.79 

Repeated  summer  

5.9 

2.15 

.3 

.03 

6.2 

2.18 

Ringing  

62.5 

17.56 

7.25 

1.00 

69.75 

1 

18.56 

TABLE  XXVIII.— Crop  in  1915  (Lupton  Orchard). 


Apples  214"  and  up 

Apples  0 • 

■214” 

Total 
Number 
per  Tree 

Total  Wt. 

Method  oi  Pruning' 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

ol  Applet 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

11.9 

4.07 

1 

•7 

.14 

12.6 

1 

4.21 

Moderate  dormant  .... 

22.9 

6.98 

3.9 

.53 

26.8 

7.51 

Light  dormant  

Heavy  dormant  and 

47.25 

13.43 

| 9.62  ' 

1 

1.25 

56.87 

14.68 

earlv  summer  

Mod.  dormant  and 

5.7 

1.76 

I .7 

1 

o 

oo 

6.4 

1.84 

early  summer  

24.6 

7.51 

3.4 

.54 

28.0 

8.05 

Early  summer  

20.3 

6.06 

3.3 

.47 

23.6 

6.53 

Midsummer  

10.3 

3.36 

1 1.3 

.16 

11.6 

3.52 

Repeated  summer  

11.5 

3.24 

2.4 

.29 

13.9 

3.53 

Ringing  

1.6 

.56 

.4 

.05 

2.0 

.61 

July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


41 


TABLE  XXIX. — Average  Crops  in  1914  and  1915  (Lupton  Orchard). 


Apples  2^4  and  up 

Apples  0 

- 2%” 

Total 

Total  Wt. 

Method  of  Pruning 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

Number 

Per 

tree 

ol  Apples 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

11.8 

3.77 

.65 

.09 

12.45 

3.86 

Moderate  dormant  .... 
Light  dormant  

17.55 

28.12 

5.4 

8.1 

2.25 

5.19 

.3 

.66 

19.8 

33.32 

5.7 

8.76 

Heavy  dormant  and 
early  summer  

4.05 

1.26 

.5 

.05 

4.55 

1.32 

Mod.  dormant  and 
early  summer  

20.5 

6.48 

2.25 

.33 

22.75 

6.81 

Early  summer  

15.95 

4.84 

2.1 

.29 

18.05 

5.18 

Midsummer 

7.85 

2.54 

.9 

.11 

8.75 

2.61 

Repeated  summer  

Ringing  

8.7 

32.05 

2.69 

9.06 

1.35 

3.82 

.16 

.52 

10.05 

35.87 

2.85 

9.58 

TABLE  XXX.- 

-Crop  in 

1914  (Grimes  Golden  Orchard). 

Apples  21A"  and  up 

Apples  0 

- 2%” 

Total 

Total  Wt. 

Method  of  Pruning 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

Number 
Apples  per 
Tree 

of  Apples 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

476.2 

132.7 

55.4 

8.9 

529.6 

141.6 

Moderate  dormant  .... 
Light  dormant  

378.2 

464.4 

106.3 

142.8 

45. 

24. 

6.5 

3.6 

423.2 

488.4 

112.8 

146.4 

Heavy  dormant  and 
early  summer  

46.0 

18.5 

8. 

1.12 

54. 

19.62 

Mod.  dormant  and 
early  summer  

228.5 

77.5 

9.5 

1.25 

238.0 

78.75 

Early  summer  

76.6 

28.3 

2. 

.52 

78.6 

28.82 

Midsummer 

13.0 

4.4 

1.8 

.2 

14.8 

4.6 

Repeated  summer  

Ringing  

38.5 

661.4 

16.0 

150.4 

.75 

150.6 

.09 

18.20 

39.25 

812.0 

16.09 

168.6 

TABLE  XXXI.- 

—Crop  in  1915  (Grimes  Golden  < 

Orchard) 

i. 

Apples  2-*4"  and  up 

Apples  0 

- 2y4" 

Total 

Total  Wt. 

Method  of  Pruning 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

Number  j 
Apples  per 
Tree 

ot  Apples 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

163.4 

63.77 

4.2 

.57 

167.6 

64.34 

Moderate  dormant  .... 
Light  dormant  

386.6 

437.4 

147.94 

148.22 

18.6 

17.6 

2.64 

2.33 

405.2 

455.0 

150.58 

150.55 

Heavy  dormant  and 
early  summer  

334.0 

97.50 

0.0 

0.0 

334. 

97.50 

Mod.  dormant  and 
early  summer  

265.5 

69.74 

18.5 

2.09 

284. 

71.83 

Early  summer  

222.4 

66.02 

22.6 

3.39 

245. 

69.41 

Midsummer  

236.0 

58.34 

44.6 

6.19 

284.6 

64.53 

63.02 

0.0 

Repeated  summer  

Ringing  

211.25 

0.0 

59.34 

0.0 

22.25 

0.0 

3.68 

0.0 

233.5 

0.0 

42 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


TABLE  XXXII. — Average  Crops  in  1914  and  1915. 
(Grimes  Golden  Orchard). 


Apples  2*4"  and  up  i 

Apples  0 

- 21/4” 

Total 

Total  Wt. 

Method  ol  Pruning 

No.  per 
Tree 

Wt.  per 
Tree  lbs. 

No.  per 
Tree 

1 

Wt.  per 
Tree,  lbs. 

Number 
Apples  per 
Tree 

ol  Apples 
per  Tree 
in  lbs. 

Heavy  dormant  

319.8 

98.24 

29.8 

4.73 

348.60 

102.97 

Moderate  dormant  .... 

382.4 

127.12 

31.8 

4.57 

414.2 

131.69 

Light  dormant  

Heavy  dormant  and 

450.9 

145.51 

20.8 

2.96 

471.7 

148.48 

early  summer  

Mod.  dormant  and 

190. 

58.00 

4.0 

.56 

194.0 

58.56 

early  summer  

247. 

73.62 

14.0 

1.67 

261.0 

75.29 

Early  summer  

149.5 

47.16 

12.3 

1.95 

161.8 

48.96 

Midsummer  

124.5 

31.37 

25.20 

3.19 

149.7 

34.57 

Repeated  summer  

124.87 

37.67 

11.5 

1.88 

136.37 

39.55 

Ringing  

330.7 

75.20 

75.30 

1 

9.10 

403.00 

84.30 

Although  the  1914  crop  in  the  Lupton  orchard  was  very 
light  (Table  XXVII)  still  the  results  were  uniform  enough  to 
indicate  the  effect  of  seasonal  pruning  on  fruitfulness.  It 
will  be  seen  in  this  case  that  the  dormant  pruned  trees  yielded 
about  twice  as  much  fruit  as  those  trees  pruned  in  midsum- 
mer, or  repeated  summer.  The  early  summer  pruning  alone 
seemed  to  give  satisfactory  results,  but  in  connection  with 
dormant  pruning  its  effects  were  rather  contradictory.  The 
following  year,  the  trees  under  the  different  pruning  methods 
responded  in  practically  the  same  manner  as  they  had  the  pre- 
vious year.  Table  XXVIII  shows  that  the  yield  of  fruit  from 
the  dormant  pruned  trees  far  exceeded  that  from  the  summer 
pruned  ones.  In  Table  XXIX  the  yields  for  the  two  crops  in 
the  Lupton  orchard  have  been  averaged  and  recorded.  A 
study  of  this  table  emphasizes  the  points  just  brought  out. 
Midsummer  or  repeated  summer  pruning  has  seriously  re- 
tarded crop  production.  Early  summer  pruning,  while  evi- 
dently not  as  detrimental  as  the  later  prunings,  does  not  pro- 
duce as  satisfactory  results  as  moderate  or  light  dormant 
pruning. 

In  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard,  where  larger  crops  were 
produced,  practically  the  same  results  were  obtained  as  in  the 
Lupton  orchard.  Tables  XXX  and  XXXI  show  the  yields 
from  the  different  plots  in  1914  and  1915,  while  Table  XXXII 
gives  the  average  yields  for  these  two  years.  In  this  table, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  average  weight  of  fruit  from  the  dor- 
mant pruned  plots  was  127.71  pounds  per  tree ; from  the  dor- 
mant and  early  summer  pruned  plot,  66.92  pounds  per  tree ; 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


43 


and  from  the  summer  pruned  plots,  41.02  pounds  per  tree.  In 
both  orchards  the  light  dormant  pruning  gave  the  best  results 
as  regards  fruit  production. 

For  ease  in  comparison,  the  yields  of  the  dormant  pruned 
trees,  the  dormant  and  summer  pruned  trees,  and  the  ones 
pruned  in  the  summer  time  only  have  been  averaged  for  each 
orchard,  and  are  shown  in  terms  of  percentages.  The  weight 
of  fruit  from  the  dormant  pruned  trees  is  taken  as  100. 


TABLE  XXXIII.— Yields  of  1914  and  1915  in  Percentages. 


LUPTON  ORCHARD. 

Type  of  Pruning 

1914 

1915 

Average 

Dormant  pruned  

...  100. 

100. 

100. 

Dormant  and  summer  pruned 

...  93.5 

56.1 

66.6 

Summer  pruned  

...  75.2 

51.5 

58.2 

GRIMES  GOLDEN  ORCHARD. 

Type  of  Pruning 

1914 

1915 

Average 

Dormant  pruned  

...  100. 

100. 

100. 

Dormant  and  summer  pruned 

...  36.8 

69.5 

52.4 

Summer  pruned  

...  12.3 

53.9 

32.1 

These  results  are  very  similar  to  those  found  by  Batche- 
lor and  Goodspeed  in  Utah1.  These  authors,  in  reporting  the 
results  of  four  years’  pruning  experiments  on  young  bearing 
Jonathan  trees,  state  that  the  summer  pruned  plots  averaged 
191  pounds  of  fruit  less  per  tree  for  the  four  years  than  did 
similar  trees  pruned  in  the  dormant  season.  The  summer 
pruned  plots  also  averaged  112  pounds  of  fruit  less  per  tree 
than  the  unpruned  trees.  Their  reports  on  similarly  pruned 
Gano  trees  show  that  the  summer  pruned  trees  produced  112 
pounds  per  tree  less  than  the  dormant  pruned  ones  and  219 
pounds  per  tree  less  than  unpruned  trees. 

Our  experiments  on  young  trees  bearing  their  first  crops 
thus  show  that  summer  pruning  has  reduced  both  vigor  and 
fruitfulness. 

The  Effects  of  Ringing  on  the  Growth  and  Fruitfulness 
of  Young  Apple  Trees. 

On  May  31,  1913,  seven  trees  in  the  Lupton  orchard  and 
five  in  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  were  ringed.  At  that  time, 
the  foliage  was  well  developed  and  the  sap  was  flowing  freely. 
These  trees  were  pruned  at  the  time  of  ringing  in  1913  and 
received  a light  to  moderate  pruning  before  growth  started 

•Batchelor,  L.  D.  and  Goodspeed,  W.  E.,  Utah  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  140. 


44 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


in  1914  and  1915.  In  the  operation  of  ringing  a small  circular 
band  of  bark  extending  through  the  cortex  and  bast  about 
three-fourths  of  an  inch  in  width  was  removed  from  each  tree 
at  about  four  inches  above  the  level  of  the  ground.  Theoretic- 
ally, ringing  is  not  supposed  to  prevent  the  passage  of  the  un- 
assimilated sap  from  the  roots  to  the  leaves,  but  does  prevent 
the  distribution  of  the  assimilated  sap  below  the  place  ringed. 
By  causing  this  large  amount  of  food  material  to  be  stored  in 
the  upper  parts  of  the  tree,  the  formation  of  many  more  fruit 
buds  is  supposed  to  take  place.  With  a view  of  obtaining 
some  data  as  to  the  effects  of  ringing  on  the  vigor  and  fruit- 
fulness of  young  bearing  apple  trees,  this  experiment  was 
started. 

Effect  of  Ringing  on  Terminal  Growth.  By  referring  to 
Table  XXII  and  Table  XXIII  the  effect  of  ringing  on  the  ter- 
minal growth  in  the  two'  orchards  can  be  seen.  It  will  be  no- 
ticed in  both  orchards  that  the  terminal  growth  was  as  vig- 
orous as  any  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  The  ringing 
seriously  retarded  this  growth  in  the  next  two  years.  In 
both  orchards  the  ringed  trees  made  a poorer  terminal  growth 
than  did  any  of  the  other  plots.  In  the  Lupton  orchard,  the 
terminal  growth  on  the  heavy  dormant  pruned  trees  was  more 
than  twice  as  vigorous  as  that  on  the  ringed  trees.  Ringing  in 
this  case  certainly  reduced  the  vigor  of  the  trees. 

Effect  of  Ringing  on  Trunk  Circumference.  The  increase 
in  trunk  circumference  in  the  Grimes  Golden  orchard  was 
taken  for  the  year  1914.  In  Table  XXIV  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  ringing  acted  as  a check  in  trunk  development  when  com- 
pared with  the  dormant  pruning.  The  trunks  of  the  ringed 
trees  increased  at  the  same  rate  as  did  those  pruned  in 
midsummer. 

Effect  of  Ringing  on  Size  of  Leaves  and  Total  Area  of  Leaf 
Surface.  By  referring  to  Tables  XXV  and  XXVI  the  effect 
of  ringing  on  foliage  development  can  be  seen.  In  the  case 
of  the  ringed  trees  in  the  Lupton  orchard,  the  leaves  were 
shorter  and  narrower  and  had  less  area  than  did  those  in  any 
of  the  other  plots.  These  trees  had  slightly  more  leaves  per 
tree  than  did  the  summer  pruned  ones,  but  considerably  fewer 
than  the  dormant  pruned  trees.  The  ringed  plot  ranked  sev- 
enth as  regards  total  leaf  area  per  tree.  In  the  case  of  the 
Grimes  Golden  orchard,  ringing  again  acted  as  a check  to 
leaf  development.  Although  in  this  case  the  leaves  were 
slightly  larger  than  those  on  the  summer  pruned  tree,  stilt 
they  were  considerably  smaller  than  those  on  the  dormant 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


45 


pruned  trees.  This  weakened  appearance  of  the  tree  as  re- 
gards color  and  amount  of  foliage  was  very  plainly  noticeable. 
In  fact,  the  trees  appeared  more  sickly  than  the  figures  show. 

Effect  of  Ringing  on  Fruitfulness.  Tables  XXVII  to 
XXIX  show  the  effect  of  ringing  on  fruitfulness  in  the  Lup- 
ton  orchard.  It  will  be  seen  that  in  1914,  the  year  following 
the  ringing,  the  ringed  trees  bore  larger  amounts  of  fruit  than 
did  those  in  any  of  the  other  plots.  However,  the  following 
year,  1915,  these  same  trees  bore  practically  no  fruit,  while  the 
■other  plots  produced  good  crops. 

Similar  results  were  secured  in  the  Grimes  Golden  or- 
chard only  in  a more  striking  degree.  Tables  XXX  to  XXXII 
show  that  while  the  ringed  trees  bore  the  largest  crops  in 
1914,  they  produced  no  fruit  whatever  in  1915.  It  will  also 
be  noticed  that  the  apples  were  undersized  and  poor  in  1914. 
It  should  be  noted  here  that  the  season  of  1914  was  very  dry. 
This  may  partially  account  for  the  lack  of  development  of 
the  fruit  of  that  year  and  for  the  depicted  tree  vigor  that  was 
so  apparent.  Although  the  ringed  trees  in  both  orchards  have 
appeared  to  regain  their  vigor  somewhat  during  the  present 
year  (1916)  still  they  are  far  from  being  as  vigorous  as  the 
dormant  pruned  trees  and  are  bearing  practically  no  fruit 
buds.  Three  trees  ringed  in  this  orchard  in  1912  responded  in 
the  same  manner  as  those  just  described.  All  bore  well  in 
1913  but  produced  practically  nothing  in  1914  and  1915. 

From  the  results  of  our  observations,  ringing  plainly 
•checks  the  vigor  of  the  tree  for  at  least  three  years  and  al- 
though it  has  been  successful  in  causing  trees  to  bear  the 
year  following  the  operation,  this  bearing  has  not  been  estab- 
lished as  a habit. 

Experiments  on  Ringing  Apples  in  Other  States.  Howe 
of  the  Geneva  New  York  Station1  in  his  summary  on  “Ring- 
ing Fruit  Trees”  states  that  under  certain  conditions  ringing 
may  induce  and  possibly  increase  fruitfulness  in  apples,  but 
it  rarely  has  these  favorable  effects  on  other  fruits.  He  also 
states  that  only  young  and  very  vigorous  apple  trees,  possibly 
now  and  then  pear  and  cherry  trees,  can  survive  ringing  and 
that  even  with  these  fruits  the  compensating  gains  seldom  off- 
set the  injury  to  the  trees.  He  found  that  the  general  effect 
of  ringing  on  the  roots  of  the  trees  was  to  decrease  their  size 
and  number  and  lessen  their  vigor. 

Drinkard  in  Virginia2  working  with  young  dwarf  apples 
•concluded  that  ringing  at  different  seasons  when  accompanied 

1 Howe,  G.  H.,  N.  Y.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  391. 

2 Drinkard,  A.  W.  Jr.,  Va.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Tech.  Bull.  5. 


46 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15S 


or  preceded  by  spring  pruning  of  the  branches  produced  no 
noticeable  stimulation  of  fruit  bud  development,  but  that  when 
ringing  was  done  at  the  time  the  foliage  was  fully  developed 
in  the  absence  of  spring  pruning,  fruit  bud  development  was 
uniformly  increased.  In  this  case,  although  the  growth  of  the 
trees  was  good,  he  states  that  the  foliage  of  the  trees  was 
somewhat  sparse,  about  fifty  or  sixty  percent  of  that  of  the 
check  trees. 

Maynard  in  Massachusetts1  found  that  although  ringings 
or  girdling  crab-apple  trees  increased  fruitfulness,  he  consid- 
ered that  the  practice  should  be  applied  only  under  special 
conditions. 

The  Geneva  New  York  Station2  found  the  practice  of 
ringing  to  be  devitalizing  also  when  applied  to  other  plants 
such  as  the  tomato,  grape,  and  chrysanthemum. 

Effects  of  Seasonal  Pruning  upon  Bearing  Orchards. 

Data  as  to  the  effects  of  seasonal  pruning  upon  bearing 
orchards  were  secured  from  the  Boyer  orchard.  Seventy 
trees  consisting  of  fourteen  rows,  five  in  each  row  of  the  Ar- 
kansas (Mammoth  Black  Twig)  and  York  Imperial  varieties, 
fifteen  years  old  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  were  used 
in  this  test.  Five  trees  of  one  variety  were  used  in  each  plot. 
An  outline  of  the  experiment  and  a general  description  of  the 
orchard  can  be  found  on  pages  five  and  seven  under  the  head- 
ing “Outline  of  the  West  Virginia  Experiments.”  This  or- 
chard at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  was  not  in  a very 
vigorous  condition  but  under  the  influence  of  clean  cultivation, 
leguminous  cover  crops,  and  some  fertilization  it  soon  became 
vigorous  and  healthy. 

Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth.  The  length  and 
diameter  of  the  terminal  growth  was  measured  each  year  in 
the  different  plots  as  it  was  thought  that  they  would  be  a good 
index  of  the  vigor  of  the  trees.  The  amount  of  wood  removed 
each  year  was  also  weighed  and  records  were  kept. 


1 Mass.  Hatch  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  1 :12-13. 

2 Hedrick,  U.  P.,  Taylor,  O.  M.,  and  Wellington,  Richard,  N.  Y.,  Agr.  Exp. 
Sta.,  Bull.  288. 

2 Paddock,  Wendell,  N.  Y.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bull.  151. 


47 


July,  1916]  VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


TABLE  XXXIV. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Amount 
of  Wood  Removed  (Arkansas). 


Method  ol  Pruning 

Length  in 
Inches 
1911 

Average 
Length  in 
Inches 

1912-15 

Diameter 
in  Inches 
1911 

Average 
Diameter 
in  Inches 
1912-15 

Weight  in 
lbs. 

Removed 
per  Tree 

1912-15 

Heavy  dormant  

4.08 

9.17 

.156 

.189 

21.79 

Moderate  dormant  

4.06 

8.5 

.149 

.181 

8.33 

Light  dormant  

4.21 

7.1 

.158 

.17 

5.26 

Heavy  dormant  and  early 
summer 

4.22 

8.52 

.158 

.192 

30.51 

Moderate  dormant  and 
early  summer  

4.94 

8.88 

.171 

.187 

13.87 

Early  summer  

3.84 

7.25 

.173 

.169 

17.66 

Midsummer  

4.15 

8.86 

.171 

.184 

38.38 

TABLE  XXXV. — Character  of  Annual  Terminal  Growth  and  Amount 
of  Wood  Removed  (York  Imperial). 


Method  ol  Pruning 

Length  in 
Inches 
1911 

Average 
Length  in 
Inches 

1912-T5 

Diameter 
in  Inches 
1911 

Average 
Diameter 
in  Inches 
1912-15 

Weight  in 
lbs. 

Removed 
per  Tree 
1912-15 

Heavy  dormant  

4.06 

5.2 

.153 

.137 

8.89 

Moderate  dormant  

3.92 

4.92 

.152 

.126 

8.28 

Light  dormant  

4.69 

4.09 

.174 

.128 

5.46 

Heavy  dormant  and  early 
summer  

4.55 

5.49 

.158 

.14 

20.38 

Moderate  dormant  and 
early  summer  

5.16 

5.9 

.16 

.144 

17.46 

Early  summer  

4.71 

4.66 

.165 

.135 

23.2 

Midsummer  

4.85 

4.37 

.176 

.134 

12.31 

1 

It  can  be  seen  in  Table  XXXIV  and  Table  XXXV  that  in 
the  case  of  large  bearing  trees,  pruning  at  different  seasons  of 
the  year  did  not  influence  the  terminal  growth  as  did  seasonal 
pruning  on  very  young  trees  or  trees  just  bearing  their  first 
crops.  While  with  the  Arkansas  variety  heavy  dormant  prun- 
ing caused  a slightly  longer  and  thicker  terminal  growth  than 
did  the  other  treatments,  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  terminal 
growths  in  the  other  plots  are  about  the  same  and  that  none 
of  these  are  much  below  those  in  the  heavy  dormant  pruned 
plot.  In  the  case  of  the  York  Imperial  variety  the  dormant 
pruned  trees  and  those  trees  which  had  a combination  of  dor- 
mant and  early  summer  pruning  seemed  to  have  produced 
slightly  more  vigorous  growth  than  did  either  the  early  sum- 
mer or  midsummer  pruned  trees,  with  the  exception  of  the 


48 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


light  dormant  pruned  trees.  These  trees  produced  the  weak- 
est terminal  growths  of  all  plots.  Taken  as  a whole  the  sum- 
mer pruning  did  not  seem  to  check  seriously  the  terminal 
growth  in  middle-aged  bearing  trees.  A study  of  Tables 
XXXIV  and  XXXV  shows  that  as  far  as  effect  of  summer 
pruning  upon  terminal  growth  is  concerned,  little  can  be  said. 
With  both  varieties,  midsummer  as  well  as  early  summer 
pruning  produced  a more  vigorous  growth  than  that  which 
followed  light  dormant,  but  with  one  exception  less  vig- 
orous than  that  produced  by  moderate  or  heavy  dormant  prun- 
ing. It  is  not  thought  that  the  vigorous  growth  of  Arkansas 
following  midsummer  pruning  has  any  special  significance 
since  this  does  not  hold  true  with  the  York  Imperial  and  our 
experience  with  younger  trees  indicates  quite  clearly  that  mid- 
summer pruning  is  more  devitalizing  than  early  summer  prun- 
ing. Taken  as  a wliole  the  data  from  this  orchard  indicate 
that  with  middle-aged  trees  summer  pruning  may  be  practiced 
with  less  danger  of  seriously  retarding  growth  than  in  the 
case  of  younger  trees.  The  large  amount  of  wood  removed 
from  the  summer  pruned  trees  can  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  a large  proportion  of  this  weight  was  made  up  of  leaves, 
which  additional  weight  was  not  encountered  in  the  case  of 
the  dormant  pruned  trees. 

Fruit  Production.  The  records  which  we  were  able  to  ob- 
tain on  fruit  production  as  influenced  by  seasonal  pruning  were 
rather  poor,  and  very  little  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  them. 
In  1912,  the  year  the  experiment  was  started,  there  was  an  un- 
usually severe  outbreak  of  cedar  rust  in  the  county.  This  dis- 
ease checked  the  development  of  York  Imperial  so  seriously 
that  no  records  of  the  crop  were  taken  that  year.  It  is  ques- 
tionable, however,  if  the  pruning  would  have  had  much  effect, 
if  any,  on  the  crops  the  first  year.  In  1913,  a late  freeze  de- 
stroyed all  fruit  set  and  yield  records  were  again  lost.  In 
1914,  both  varieties  yielded  well  and  records  of  the  crops  were 
obtained.  In  1915,  the  Arkansas  again  developed  a good  crop, 
but  the  York  Imperial,  being  a biennial  bearer  and  having- 
borne  heavily  in  1914,  produced  practically  no  crop.  Thus,  it 
can  be  seen  that  data  were  obtained  on  the  yield  of  Arkansas 
for  two  years  in  succession  but  that  the  yield  for  only  one  year 
was  obtained  on  the  York  Imperial  variety. 

The  different  seasonal  prunings  seemed  to  produce  no  un- 
iform effects  on  these  bearing  trees.  In  the  case  of  the  Ar- 
kansas, while  midsummer  pruning  seemed  to  produce  the 
greatest  yields,  early  summer  pruning  on  the  other  hand  did 
not  materially  increase  fruitfulness.  Likewise  the  effects  of 
early  summer  pruning  in  connection  with  heavy  and  moder- 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


49 


TABLE  XXXVI. — Yields  of  Fruit  in  the  Boyer  Orchard 
per  Tree  (Arkansas). 

Average  in  Bushels  per  Tree  for  1914  and  1915  Crops. 


Method  oi  Pruning 

Bushels 

Total  Bushels 

2L  and  up 

0 - 214” 

per  Tree 

Rank 

Heavy  dormant  

9.53 

.12 

9.65 

3 

Moderate  dormant  

8.05 

.15 

8.2 

4 

Light  dormant 

7.73 

.16 

7.89 

5 

Heavy  dormant  and  early 

summer  

10.38 

.16 

10.54 

2 

Moderate  dormant  and 

early  summer  

5.56 

.07 

5.63 

7 

Early  summer  

6.51 

.10 

6.61 

6 

Midsummer  

10.88 

.13 

11.01 

1 

TABLE  XXXVil.— Yi 

elds  of  Fruit  in  the 

Boyer  Orchard 

per  Tree  (York 

Imperial). 

Average  in  Bushels  per 

Tree  in  1914  Crop. 

Method  ol  Pruning 

Bushels 
2I4”  and  up 

Bushels 

0 - 214” 

Total  Bushels 
per  Tree 

Rank 

Heavy  dormant  

11.9 

2.12 

14.02 

3 

Moderate  dormant  

9.95 

1.99 

11.94 

5 

Light  dormant  

7.9 

1.25 

9.15 

6 

Heavy  dormant  and  early 

summer  

12.5 

2.5 

15.00 

2 

Moderate  dormant  and 

early  summer 

12.75 

1.06 

13.81 

4 

Early  summer  

14.7 

1.95 

16.65 

1 

Midsummer  

7.0 

1.12 

8.12 

7 

ate  dormant  pruning  were  un-uniform  and  varied.  With  the 
York  Imperial  variety  the  rank  of  the  different  summer  prim- 
ings was  just  reversed  In  this  case,  early  summer  pruning 
produced  the  largest  yields,  while  the  midsummer  pruned 
trees  were  the  poorest  in  this  respect.  Those  trees  which  re- 
ceived both  a heavy  dormant  and  an  early  summer  pruning 
yielded  well  in  both  varieties  and  held  the  same  rank.  Like- 
wise the  heavy  dormant  pruned  trees  yielded  well  and  held 
the  same  rank  in  both  varieties. 

As  stated  previously  too  much  weight  should  not  be 
placed  on  these  results  as  in  the  one  case  they  represent  only 
one  crop  and  in  the  other  but  two.  In  the  case  of  the  middle- 
aged  trees  seasonal  pruning  did  not  exert  such  marked  differ- 
ence as  in  younger  trees.  The  heavy  and  moderate  dormant 
primings  seemed  to  be  very  satisfactory  and  uniform  in 
their  results,  while  the  results  of  the  different  summer  prim- 
ings were  contradictory  and  unconvincing. 


50 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  I5S 


CONCLUSION. 

From  the  work  of  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Exper- 
iment Station  on  the  pruning  of  apple  trees  several  general  rec- 
ommendations may  be  safely  made  for  conditions  of  growtli 
as  they  exist  in  West  Virginia.  During  the  first  four  or  five 
years  after  a tree  is  planted  its  form  must  be  moulded  and  con- 
sequently pruning  must  be  more  or  less  severe  during  this 
period.  During  the  first  two  or  three  years  as  much  as  three- 
fourths  of  the  total  length  of  new  growth  may  be  removed  an- 
nually and  the  vigor  of  the  tree  will  not  only  be  unimpaired 
but  apparently  increased  and  at  the  same  time  a strong  com- 
pact head  is  insured.  After  this,  however,  continued  severe 
annual  pruning  and  particularly  rigorous  heading  back  will 
surely  dwarf  the  growth  and  delay  fruit  bearing.  After  the 
second  or  third  year  the  pruning  should  be  confined  almost  en- 
tirely to  branch  thinning  with  heading  back  practiced  only 
when  necessary  to  maintain  the  symmetry  of  the  tree.  In  a 
two-story  tree  where  the  upper  scaffold  is  not  started  until  the 
third  year  heading  in  must  be  continued  on  this  scaffold  for 
two  or  three  years  to  make  a satisfactory  top,  but  here  it  should 
be  discontinued  as  soon  as  possible.  In  short,  to  secure  maxi- 
mum growth  together  with  early  fruiting,  the  pruning  during 
the  period  from  planting  to  bearing  age  should  be  just  suf- 
ficient to  get  a well  formed  head  and  then  to  keep  the  branches 
properly  thinned.  In  older  trees  which  have  been  neglected, 
heavy  pruning,  both  thinning  and  cutting  back  to  lower  the 
top,  may  be  practiced  to  stimulate  new  growth  but  should  be 
followed  in  subsequent  years  only  by  normal  branch  thinning. 
Old  trees  in  good  condition  should  receive  light  annual  thin- 
ning of  branches. 

A great  deal  has  been  written  and  spoken  in  support  of 
summer  pruning  but  from  the  experiments  already  discussed 
we  can  only  conclude  that  it  is  a practice  unsuited  to  West 
Virginia  conditions.  In  no  case  did  it  hasten  the  fruiting  of 
young  trees  or  increase  their  crops  after  they  came  to  a bear- 
ing age.  On  the  other  hand,  it  clearly  impaired  the  vigor  of 
the  tree.  Theoretically,  it  should  check  growth  and  induce 
fruit  bud  formation.  Unquestionably,  it  checked  growth  but 
the  fruit  buds  failed  to  follow. 


July,  T916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


51 


SUMMARY. 

1.  This  bulletin  is  a preliminary  report  of  a pruning  ex- 
-periment  covering  a period  of  four  years  and  embracing  366 
.apple  trees  of  various^  ages.  Study  has  been  made  of  the  ef- 
fects on  vigor  and  fruitfulness  of  various  degrees  of  dormant 
pruning,  summer  pruning  at  different  times,  and  combina- 
tions of  dormant  and  summer  pruning. 

2.  Heavy  annual  dormant  pruning  resulted  in  stronger 
-terminal  growth  than  lighter  pruning  on  trees  of  all  ages. 

3.  In  the  study  of  trees  up  to  five  and  six  years  of  age  it 
was  found  that  annual  heavy  dormant  pruning  was  beneficial 
from  the  growth  standpoint  for  the  first  two  or  three  years 
after  which  it  dwarfed  growth  so  that  by  the  end  of  the  period 
the  lightly  pruned  trees  showed  a strikingly  greater  increase 
in  trunk  diameter,  branch  diameter,  size  of  top,  and  total  an- 
nual growffh. 

4.  With  trees  five  or  six  years  old  at  the  close  of  the  ex- 
periment heavy  annual  dormant  pruning  delayed  fruit  bud  for- 
mation and  light  pruning  encouraged  it. 

5.  With  trees  of  bearing  age  (six  or  seven  years  at  be- 
ginning of  test)  heavy  annual  dormant  pruning  diminished 
crop  production  and  light  annual  dormant  pruning  increased  it. 

6.  With  fifteen-year-old  bearing  trees  in  only  a fair  state 
■of  vigor  heavy  annual  dormant  pruning  increased  fruit 
production. 

7.  Early,  midsummer,  and  repeated  summer  pruning,  as 
a rule,  impaired  tree  vigor  as  evidenced  by  smaller  annual 
growth,  smaller  leaf  area,  and  light  colored  foliage.  Early 
summer  pruning  was  less  deterrent  in  its  effect  than  was  re- 
peated or  midsummer  pruning. 

8.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  either  early,  re- 
peated, or  midsummer  pruning  will  hasten  the  bearing  period 
of  young  trees  or  increase  crop  production  of  trees  of  bearing 
age. 

9.  Ringing  of  trees  caused  heavy  crop  production  the 
following  season  but  so  impaired  the  vigor  that  no  crop  was 
produced  the  second  or  third  year,  and  at  least  three  seasons 
were  required  to  restore  the  tree  to  normal  conditions. 

10.  With  normal  trees  maximum  growth  and  production 
will  be  secured  by  light  annual  dormant  pruning  except  with 
trees  under  three  years  of  age  which  will  respond  more  satis- 
factorily to  heavy  dormant  pruning. 


52 


W.  YA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15& 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  APPLE  PRUNING. 

Alderman,  W.  H.,  The  Results  of  Apple  Pruning  Investiga- 
tions.— Proc.  of  the  Soc.  Hort.  Sci.,  Twelfth  Annual  Meet- 
ing (1915),  pp.  54-59, 

Aldrich,  H.  A.,  An  Experiment  in  Pruning  Old  Trees. — Trans. 

111.  Sta.  Hort.  Soc.  (1899),  pp.  48-54. 

Allen,  W.  J.,  Pruning. — Gaz.,  New  South  Wales,  Vol.  15^ 
No.  8 (1904),  pp.  798-800. 

Anonymous,  Science  of  Fruit  Tree  Fruitfulness  Simplified. — 
Agr.  Jour.  Cape  Good  Hope,  Vol.  14,  No.  5 (1899),  pp. 
296-298. 

Atwood,  W.,  Kraus,  E.  J.,  Lewis,  C.  I.,  and  Gardner,  V.  R.r 
Pruning. — Oregon  Agr.  Col.  Exp.  Sta.,  Bulletin  130  (Mayr 
1915). 

Baltet,  C.  & Charquerand,  Principles  of  Pruning  Shrubs. — - 
Florists  Exchange  No.  17,  (1899),  pp.  470-471. 

Balmer,  J.  A.,  Pruning  Orchard  Trees. — Wash.  Exp.  Sta.  Bul- 
letin 25  (1896). 

Bailev,  L.  H.,  The  Pruning  Book. — The  MacMillan  Company,. 
New  York,  (1898). 

.,  Pruning. — The  Principles  of  Fruit  Growing. — 

The  MacMillan  Company,  New  York,  20th  edition, 
(1915),  pp.  230-241. 

Batchelor,  L.  D.,  Pruning  the  Apple  Orchard. — Utah  Exp. 
Sta.,  Circular  No.  9 (March,  1913). 

and  Goodspeed,  W.  E.,  The  Summer  Pruning  of 

a Young  Bearing  Apple  Orchard. — Utah  Exp.  Sta.,  Bul- 
letin No.  140  (November,  1915). 

Bedford  and  Pickering,  Cultural  Experiments  on  Apples,  Etc. 
— Woburn  Exp.  Fruit  Farm,  Fifth  Report  (1905). 

, Pruning. — Woburn  Exp.  Fruit  Farm,  Seventh 

Report  (1907). 

Bryant,  Arthur,  Trimming  of  Trees. — 111.  Sta.  Hort.  Soc.  Re- 
port (1902),  pp.  251-254. 

Bunyard,  E.  A.,  The  Physiology  of  Pruning. — Jour.  Roy.  Hort. 
Soc.  (1909-10),  pp.  330-334. 

Bunyard,  G.  and  Thomas,  O.,  The  F'ruit  Garden. — Chas.  Scrib- 
ner, publisher,  New  York  (1904). 

Bussard,  Leon  and  Duval,  G.,  Arboriculture  Fruitiere. — J.  B. 

Bailliere  & Sons,  Paris  (1907). 

Card,  F.  W.,  Notes  on  Pruning. — Nebr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin  No. 
50  (November,  1897). 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


53 


, Pruning  Trees  When  Planted  (Results  of  Three 

Years’  Growth),  Rhode  Island  Exp.  Sta.  Rept.  (1901), 
pp.  238-241. 

, Pruning  Trees  When  Planted. — Rhode  Island 

Exp.  Sta.  Report  (1898),  pp.  107-110. 

, Pruning  at  Planting  Time. — Rhode  Island  Exp. 

Sta.  Rept.  (1907),  pp.  264-265. 

Chandler,  W.  H.  and  Knapp,  H.  B.,  Pruning. — Cornell  Read- 
ing Course,  Vol.  v]  No.  104  (January,  1916),  pp.  75-84. 
Corbett,  L.  C.,  Pruning. — U.  S.  Dept,  of  Agr.,  Farmers’  Bulle- 
tin 181  (September,  1903). 

, Tree  Pruning. — West  Va.  Agri.  Exp.  Sta.  Rept. 

(1896),  p.  208. 

Crandall,  C.  S.,  Pruning.— 111.  Sta.  Hort.  Soc.  Rept.  (1902), 
pp.  396-400. 

Crider,  F.  J.,  Practical  Orchard  Pruning. — South  Carolina  Exp. 

Sta.  Bulletin  176  (April,  1914). 

Dickens,  Albert,  Summer  Pruning. — Kansas  Exp.  Sta.  Bulle- 
tin 136,  (1906),  p.  181. 

Drinkard,  A.  W.  Jr.,  Some  Effects  of  Pruning,  Root  Pruning, 
Ringing  and  Stripping  on  the  Formation  of  Fruit  Buds 
on  Dwarf  Apple  Trees.— Va.  Exp.  Sta.  Tech.  Bulletin  No. 
5 (April,  1915). 

Editor  of  Gardeners  Chronicle,  Summer  Pruning. — Gardeners 
Chronicle,  Series  3,  Vol.  41,  No.  1069  (1907),  pp.  400-406. 
Editor  of  Nature,  Horticultural  Investigations  at  Woburn. — 
Nature,  Vol.  91  (Aug.  29,  1913),  pp.  675-678. 

, Effects  of  Pruning  on  Fruit  Trees  (Woburn 

Experiments). — Nature,  Vol.  75  (April  11,  1907),  pp. 
569-570. 

Funk,  J.  H.,  Pruning,  Fertilizing  and  Thinning. — Penn.  Sta. 

Dept,  of  Agr.  Report  (1903),  pp.  791-796. 

Gardner,  V.  R.,  A Consideration  of  the  Question  of  “Bulk’’ 
Pruning. — Proc.  of  Am.  Pom.  Soc.,  Berkeley  Meeting 
(1915),  pp.  135-143. 

, How  Some  Current  Pruning  Practices  Defeat 

the  Real  Objects  of  Pruning. — The  Apple  Annual. — Rept. 
Proc.  Fruit  Products  Congress,  Spokane,  Wash.  (Nov. 
17-22,  1913). 

Goethe,  R.,  Die  einwirkung  des  all  jahrlich  ausgefuhrten 
schnittes  auf  das  wachstum  der  baume.  (Bericht  der  Kgl. 
lehranstalt  fur  obst. — wein — und  Gartenbau  zu  Geisen- 
heim  am  Rhein)  (1899-1900),  pp.  18-21. 

Goff,  E.  S.,  An  Ideal  Method  of  Pruning  Fruit  Trees. — Am. 
Gard.  Vol.  22,  No.  325  (1901),  p.  188. 


54 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 


Gould,  H.  P.,  Growing  Fruit  for  Home  Use  in  the  Great  Plains 
Area.- — -U.  S.  Dept,  of  Agr.,  Farmers’  Bulletin  727  (1916), 
pp.  19-27. 

Goumy,  E.,  Recherches  sur  les  bourgeoes  des  arbres  fruitiers. 
— Ann.  Sci.  Nat.  Bot.  (Paris)  9e  Serie  1 (1905),  pp. 
135-246. 

Hedrick,  U.  P.,  Pruning  Fruit  Trees. — N.  Y.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 
Circular  No.  13  (January,  1910). 

Heaton,  J.  C.  B.,  Pruning  and  Its  Effects  on  the  Future  Health 
and  Life  of  the  Tree. — 111.  Sta.  Hort.  Soc.  Report  (1896), 
pp.  246-248. 

Heiges,  S.  B.,  Time  and  Method  of  Pruning,  Report  of  Pomol- 
ogist. — U.  S.  Dept,  of  Agr.,  (1895). 

Herrick,  R.  S.,  Pruning  the  Commercial  Orchard. — Iowa  Sta. 
Hort.  Soc.  (1913),  pp.  175-179. 

Hoskins,  T.  H.,  Forming  the  Heads  of  Fruit  Trees. — Garden 
and  Forest,  Vol.  7,  (July  11,  1894),  p.  277. 

, Some  Points  in  Pruning  Fruit  Trees. — Garden 

and  Forest  Vol.  7,  (April  11,  1894),  p.  144. 

Hoyt,  Edwin,  Pruning. — Mass.  State  Hort.  Soc.  Report 
(1894),  p.  28. 

Hutt,  W.  N.,  Pruning  of  Trees  and  Bush  Fruits. — LTah  Exp. 
Sta.  Bulletin  83  (October,  1903). 

Ikeda,  T.,  The  Training  and  Pruning  of  Fruit  Trees  in  Japan. 
— Jour.  Roy.  Hort.  Soc.  (1910-11),  pp.  581-586. 

Jarvis,  C.  D.,  Apple  Growing  in  New  England. — Storrs  Conn. 
Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin  66  (1911),  pp.  240-253. 

Judson,  L.  B.,  Pruning  the  Apple  Orchard. — Idaho  Exp.  Sta- 
tion Bulletin  47  (February,  1905). 

Keffer,  C.  A.,  The  Early  Growth  and  Training  of  Apple  Trees. 
Tenn.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin,  Vol.  14,  No.  4 (December,  1901). 

, Training  and  Pruning  Fruit  Trees  and  Vines. — 

Tenn.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin,  Vol.  17,  No.  3 (July,  1904). 
Kraus,  E.  J.,  Fruit  Bud  Formation  Related  to  Orchard  Prac- 
tice.— Annual  Report  of  the  Washington  State  Horticul- 
tural Association  (Nov.  15-17,  1915),  pp.  24-29. 

Lake,  E.  R.,  The  Apple  in  Oregon. — Oregon  Sta.  Bulletin  82, 
(November,  1904),  pp.  26-37. 

Lansdell,  J.,  Pruning  Fruit  Trees  After  Planting. — Jour.  Rov. 

Hort.  Soc.  (1909-10),  pp.  384-385. 

Lazenbv,  W.  R.,  Notes  on  Pruning. — Proc.  Soc.  Hort.  Sci. 
(1908-9),  pp.  27-30. 


July,  1916] 


VARYING  DEGREES  OF  PRUNING 


55 


Lewis,  C.  I.,  Pruning,  A Question  Requiring  a Great  Deal  of 
Thought. — Better  Fruit  Vol.  8,  No.  9 (March,  1914),  pp. 
11-12. 

Long,  E.  A.,  Extremes  in  Pruning. — Am.  Gard.,  Vol.  17 
(1896),  No.  75,  p.  340. 

, Suggestions  on  Tree  Pruning. — Am.  Gard.,  Vol. 

17  (1896),  No.  65,  pp.  180-181. 

Lucas,  E.,  Die  Lehre  vom  Baumschnitt  fur  die  deutschen  Gar- 
ten bearbeitet  Stuttgart  (1909),  8 ed.  Rev.,  pp.  16-334. 

Malthouse,  G.  T.,  Garden  and  Orchard. — Harper  Adams  Agr. 
Col.,  Newport,  Salop  and  in  Staffordshire  and  Shropshire, 
Field  Experiments  Report  (1910),  p.  52. 

Maynard,  S.  T.  and  Drew,  Geo.,  Orchard  Management,  Cover 
Crops  in  Orchards,  Pruning  of  Orchards,  Report  on  Fruits. 
— Mass.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin  82  (1902). 

Merrill,  F.  S.,  Pruning. — Kansas  Exp.  Sta.  Circular  49  (March, 

1915). 

Middleton,  T.H.,  Digest  of  Pruning  Experiments.  (The  Wo- 
burn Experimental  Fruit  Farm). — Nature,  Vol.  72  (Sept. 
7,  1905),  p.  461. 

Molyneux,  E.,  Pruning  Newly  Planted  Apple  Trees. — Gard. 

Chron.  Vol.  15  (1894),  Series  3,  pp.  341-342. 

Morris,  O.  M.,  Pruning. — Washington  Exp.  Sta.  Pop.  Bulle- 
tin 79  (February,  1915). 

Munson,  W.  M.,  Pruning  Notes. — Maine  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin 
139  (1906),  pp.  60-64. 

Orpet,  E.  O.,  Pruning.— Amer.  Gard.  Vol.  19,  No.  193  (1898), 

p.  619. 

Paddock,  Wendell,  Pruning  Fruit  Trees. — Col.  Exp.  Sta.  Bul- 
letin 106  (December,  1905). 

and  Whipple,  Pruning  Young  and  Mature  Trees. 

— Fruit  Growing  in  Arid  Regions,  The  MacMillan  Com- 
pany, New  York,  (1914),  pp.  80-146. 

Pickering,  S.,  Tree  Pruning  and  Manuring. — Hort.  Research 
II  Sci.  Prog.  20th  Century  7 (1913)  No.  27,  pp.  397-442. 

and  others,  The  Summer  Pruning  of  Fruit  Trees 

Jour.  Roy.  Hort.  Soc.,  Vol.  33  Part  2 (1908),  pp.  487-499. 
Powell,  G.  H.,  The  Pruning  of  Young  Fruit  Trees. — Del.  Exp 
Sta.  Bulletin  45,  (October,  1899). 

Quinn,  George,  Fruit  Tree  Pruning. — Tour.  Agr.  and  Ind., 
South  Australia,  Vol.  3 (1899),  pp.  368-378. 

- , Further  Notes  on  Fruit  Growing  in  Tasmania. 

— Jour.  Agr.  and  Ind.,  South  Australia,  Vol.  8 (1904),  No. 

2.  pp.  69-78. 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  158 

Rane,  F.  Win,  Notes  on  Pruning.— W.  Va.  Agr  Exo  Sta 
Bulletin  27  (November,  1892).  8 P'  ta' 

Saunders  Wm,  Pruning  of  Trees  and  Other  Plants.— U S 
Dept,  of  Agr.  Year  Book  (1898),  pp.  151-166. 

Sears,  F.  C„  Report  of  Nova  Scotia  School  of  Horticulture  — 
Kepoit  of  Secy,  of  Agri.,  Nova  Scotia,  (1902),  p.  87. 

V -•>  Pruning— Productive  Orcharding.— T B Lin- 

pmcott  Co.,  Philadelphia  and  London,  (1914),  pp.  119-141. 

Standish,  J.  V.  W.  Training  and  Pruning  Trees  and  Shrubs.— 
111.  Sta.  Hort.  Soc.  Rept.  (1901),  pp.  277-280 

Sldf™ 'i<4;  pp.  £3?  F'oit  Tr”f 

Stuart,  W Apple  Culturre  in  Vermont.— Vt.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulk- 
tin  141,  pp.  63-100. 

T,%omRs;cP(S1)°giC‘l  Am, 

Th°B*;"3S(iSrnif  Fr“'  Tre'!-Wa*i-  E*p  s,“-  p»i>- 

lower,  Gordon  E.,  Pruning  and  Shaping  the  \oung  Apple 
free.— The  Apple  Annual.— Rept.  Proc.  Fruit  Products 
Congress,  Spokane,  Wash.,  (Nov.  16-21,  1914)  pp  8-10 

yVA*7!Zg  3%%0OUS  FrUitS-CaL  Exp-  Sta! 
VaS?°i883j,  pp°m5Suning'^Iowa  Sta'  Hort'  Soc-’  VoL 

Vincent,  C.  C.,  Pruning  Experiment.— Annual  Report  for  year 
ending  June  30,  1915,  Idaho  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bull.  84  (Nov. 
1915),  p.  25. 

" ’ ^ inter  versus  Summer  Pruning. — The  Apple 

Annuah— Rept  Proc.  Fruit  Products  Congress,  Spokane, 
Wash.  (Nov.  16-21,  1914),  pp.  5-6. 

Watts,  R L Pruning  Fruit  Trees.— Tenn.  Exp.  Sta.  Bulletin, 
Vol.  4,  No.  1 (January,  1891). 

Whipple,  O.  B.,  Pruning  Mature  Fruit  Trees. — Col.  Exp  Sta 
Bulletin  139  (1909).  ' 

V hitten,  J.  C.  and  Mason  J.  C.,  Effects  of  Summer  Pruning  — 

V estern  Fruit  Grower  (June,  1909). 

Wilkinson  A E Proper  Pruning  The  Apple.— Ginn  and  Co., 
New  lork  (1915),  pp.  83-90. 

Woods  Albert  F Principles  of  Pruning  and  Care  of  Wounds 
111  ^ °°c'PPlants-— u-  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Year  Book  (1895), 

pp.  Zj/-Zoo. 

Worsdell,  W.C.,  Principles  and  Practices  of  Pruning.— Gard. 
Chron.,  Third  Series,  Vol  24  (1898),  No.  608,  pp"  133-135. 


Bulletin  159 


August,  1916 


Wt$ t Virginia  UntoerSttp 

Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN 


DEPARTMENT  OF  SOILS 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 

TECHNICAL  BULLETIN 


BY 

Firman  E.  Bear  and  Robert  M.  Salter 


Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  the  West  Virginia 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va, 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 

THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY... Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER... ..Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY ...Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY..... Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D.. President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER  A.M.,  Ph.D 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RTJMSEY.  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD.  M.S.  Agr 

T.  S.  COOK.  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEA  IRS  M.S 

E.  W.  SHEETS.  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S 

FIRMAN  E BEAR  M.Sc...  

C.  A.  LUEDER.  D.V.M.... 

fL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Sc 

GEORGE  W.  BURKE,  B.S 

ROBERT  M.  SALTER,  M.Sc 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr..  

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

*A.  J.  DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr..  

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  H.  TUCKWILLER,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  M.S.  Agr 

•C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

C.  E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

...Poultryman 

Consulting  Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Animal  Industry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

...Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

...Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


*In  co-operation  with  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture, 
fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 


METHODS  INj.SOIL  ANALYSIS 

By  FIRMAN  E.  BEAR  and  ROBERT  M.  SALTER. 


INTRODUCTION. 

Much  importance  has  been  attributed  in  recent  years  to 
the  analysis  of  soils  for  total  constituents.  The  literature 
covering  the  methods  for  such  analysis,  while  rather  exten- 
sive, is  scattered,  and  in  many  cases  the  methods  described 
are  not  well  suited  to  rapid  routine  practice.  In  view  of  these 
facts  it  has  been  thought  that  the  compilation  and  publication 
of  the  methods  used  and  in  part  evolved  in  the  soils  laboratory 
of  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  may 
be  of  value  to  others  desiring  methods  which  are  rapid  and 
at  the  same  time  sufficiently  accurate  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  most  soil  investigations.  The  methods  are  presented  in 
sufficient  detail  to  permit  their  employment  by  those  who 
have  not  had  extensive  experience  in  quantitative  work. 

In  the  development  of  these  methods  access  has  been 
had  to  the  methods  employed  by  the  New  York,  Illinois,  and 
Wisconsin  experiment  stations.  Use  has  also  been  made  of 
material  from  procedures  as  published  by  the  Ohio,  Tennessee, 
and  other  experiment  stations.  Much  has  been  adapted  from 
bulletin  422  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey. 

Most  of  the  methods  herein  described  have  been  proved 
reliable  by  their  successful  use  in  several  hundred  analyses 
of  various  types  of  West  Virginia  soils. 

CHOOSING  SAMPLES. 

In  sampling  any  given  area  three  composite  samples  are 
ordinarily  chosen,  representing  different  depths  as  follows : 
sample  A,  0 to  62/$  inches ; sample  B,  6^3  to  20  inches ; sample 
C,  20  to  40  inches.  A one-inch  soil  auger  is  used  in  securing 
samples.  Sample  A is  a composite  of  from  20  to  30  borings, 
so  chosen  as  to  furnish  as  nearly  as  possible  a truly  represen- 
tative sample  of  the  area  in  question.  Samples  B and  C are 
composites  of  from  10  to  15  borings.  As  samples  are  taken 
in  the  field  they  are  placed  in  clean  cloth  sacks  and  sent  im- 
mediately to  the  laboratory  where  they  are  air  dried  and  pre- 
pared for  analysis. 


4 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


PREPARATION  OF  SAMPLES  FOR  ANALYSIS. 

The  samples,  after  being  air  dried,  are  pulverized  in  a 
porcelain  mortar  to  pass  a 2-mm.  sieve,  care  being  taken  not 
to  pulverize  any  pieces  of  rock  or  shale.  The  material  which 
fails  to  pass  the  sieve  is  weighed  and  its  percentage  of  the 
whole  sample  calculated.  This  material  is  placed  in  a glass 
jar  and  labeled  Discard,  No , A.  B.  or  C. 

The  material  which  passes  the  sieve  is  thoroughly  mixed 
and  a sufficient  amount  selected  by  the  method  of  quartering 
to  fill  an  eight-ounce  jar.  This  latter  material  is  then  further 
pulverized  in  an  agate  mortar  so  that  all  passes  a 100-mesh 
sieve,  no  portion  being  rejected.  All  samples  are  stored  in 
tight  glass  jars  of  eight-  and  sixteen-ounce  sizes,  with  metal 
screw  tops. 


MOISTURE. 

Five  grams  of  100-mesh  soil  are  weighed  into  an  alum- 
inum dish  provided  with  tight  cover  or  into  a low  form  weigh- 
ing bottle  with  ground  glass  stopper.  The  soil  is  dried  for 
five  hours  in  an  oven  kept  at  110°  C.  The  dish  or  weighing 
bottle  is  cooled  in  desiccator,  covered,  and  weighed. 


DETERMINATION  OF  IRON,  ALUMINIUM, 
TITANIUM,  MANGANESE,  CALCIUM, 

AND  MAGNESIUM. 

The  procedure  outlined  for  these  determinations  has  been 
developed  with  the  idea  of  eliminating  the  difficulties  which 
arise  when  silica  is  determined  in  the  same  sample  as  the 
above-named  elements.  This  has  proved  particularly  advan- 
tageous at  the  West  Virginia  Experiment  Station  laboratory, 
since  in  many  samples  which  have  been  analyzed  for  these  ele- 
ments the  content  of  silica  was  not  desired.  The  method  de- 
pends on  the  decomposition  of  the  sample  by  means  of  hydro- 
fluoric acid. 


Decomposition  of  Sample. 

A one-gram  sample  of  100-mesh  soil  is  treated  in  a plat- 
inum crucible  of  35  cc.  capacity  with  5 cc.  of  hydrofluoric 
acid  (48%)  and  cc.  of  concentrated  sulphuric  acid.  The 
mixture  is  slowly  evaporated  on  a water  or  sand  bath  and  the 
excess  sulphuric  acid  driven  off  by  inclining  the  crucible  upon 
a triangle  and  cautiously  heating  the  upper  portion  with  a 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


5 


low  flame.  When  dry  the  crucible  is  ignited1  until  organic 
matter  is  burned  off.  From  three  to  five  cc.  of  hydrofluoric 
acid  are  added  and  again  slowly  evaporated  on  a water  or 
sand  bath.  This  is  repeated  until  no  gritty  particles  are 
noticed  when  residue  is  rubbed  with  a platinum  spatula,  two 
or  three  evaporations  ordinarily  being  sufficient.  Any  fluorides 
are  now  changed  to  sulphates  by  treating  with  a few  drops 
of  H2S04  and  volatilizing  over  a free  flame  as  previously  de- 
scribed. The  residue  is  treated  with  5 cc.  of  concentrated 
HC1  and  transferred  with  water  to  a 500  cc.  beaker.  The 
volume  at  this  point  should  be  about  75  cc.  The  solution  is 
boiled  until  residue  dissolves.2 

The  acid  present  is  partially  neutralized  with  about  6 cc. 
of  1 : 1 NH4OH  (14%  NH3)  and  then  10%  Na2C03  solution 
is  added  drop  by  drop  with  stirring  until  the  color  of  the  solu- 
tion tends  to  darken.  The  dropwise  addition  is  continued 
from  this  point  more  slowly  and  with  more  thorough  stirring 
between  drops  until  the  cloudiness  produced  by  one  drop 
seems  to  increase  when  stirred  rather  than  to  decrease.  One 
or  two  drops  of  cencentrated  HC1  are  now  added  to  clear 
the  solution.3  Ten  cc.  of  30%  sodium  acetate  solution  are 
added  and  the  volume  made  up  to  from  300  to  350  cc.  with 
boiling  water.  The  solution  is  brought  to  boiling  and  boiled 
from  2 to  3 minutes.  After  allowing  the  precipitate  to  settle 
it  is  filtered  onto  an  11-cm.  ashless  paper,  and  sucked  dry4.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  wash  the  precipitate  at  this  point  since  it 
is  transferred  together  with  filter  back  to  the  original  beaker 
and  re-precipitated  as  follows:  Five  cc.  of  concentrated  HN03 
are  added  and  the  paper  is  broken  up  with  a sharp  glass  rod. 
Water  is  added  to  make  the  volume  up  to  300  cc.  The  solu- 
tion is  brought  to  boiling  and  NH4OH  is  added  slowly  until 
a slight  excess  is  indicated  by  the  odor  of  free  NHS.  The 
solution  is  boiled  one  minute  and  allowed  to  stand  until  the 


1 Ignition  burns  off  organic  matter  and  also  seems  to  help  in  the  further  de- 
composition of  the  silicates  by  hydrofluoric  acid. 

2 A slight  amount  of  insoluble  residue  is  generally  present.  This  probably 
consists,  as  found  by  Robinson  (bulletin  122,  United  States  Bureau  of  Soils),  of 
barium  sulphate,  zircons  and  possibly  other  rare  earths,  and  in  some  instances 
small  amounts  of  undecomposed  quartz.  The  amount  of  CaS04  derived  from  ordi- 
nary soils  is  such  as  to  go  entirely  into  solution  when  boiled  with  HC1.  Any  in- 
soluble residue  need  not  be  filtered  off  since  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  determ- 
ination of  total  oxides,  being  weighed  with  oxides  and  again  after  pyro-sulphate 
fusion  and  reduction  by  H2S  with  the  crucible  alone. 

3 If  more  than  one  or  two  drops  of  acid  is  required  to  clear  the  solution,  it 
is  better  to  add  an  excess  of  acid  and  repeat  the  neutralization  with  sodium 
carbonate. 

4 The  basic  acetate  method  is  used  for  the  first  precipitation  of  total  oxides, 
since  there  seems  to  be  less  tendency  for  manganese  to  be  co-precipitated  with 
this  procedure  than  where  the  first  precipitation  is  made  with  NH4OH.  It  is  open 
to  possible  objection  that  more  aluminium  passes  into  the  filtrate  than  with  the 
latter  method.  However,  the  subsequent  procedure  permits  of  the  proper  correc- 
tion for  aluminium. 


6 W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 

precipitate  settles.  It  is  filtered  onto  an  11-cm.  ashless  paper 
and  washed  several  times  with  hot  2%  NH4NOs  solution 
(slightly  alkaline  with  NH4OH)  with  intermediate  suction. 
The  first,  and  second  filtrates  are  combined,  made  acid  with 
HN03,  and  evaporated  to  dryness  in  a Non-sol  or  Jena  beaker 
on  the  water  bath.  The  ammonium  salts  are  now  volatilized 
by  heating  in  an  oven  kept  at  175°  C.,  the  beaker  being  kept 
covered  with  a watch  glass1.  The  precipitate  and  paper  are 
placed  in  a platinum  crucible  and  the  paper  burned  off  at  low 
heat.  The  precipitate  is  finally  heated  to  constant  weight 
over  a Scimatco  burner. 


Determination  of  Iron,  and  Total  Oxides. 

The  ignited  oxides  are  brought  into  solution  by  fusing 
with  5 g.  of  potassium  pyro-sulphate2  and  dissolving  in  hot 
water  to  which  is  added  1 cc.  of  concentrated  H2S04.  The 
solution  is  transferred  to  a 250-cc.  Erlenmeyer  flask.  The 
volume  should  be  from  75  to  100  cc.  The  iron  is  reduced  and 
dissolved  platinum  precipitated  by  passing  in  a slow  stream 
of  H2S3  and  gradually  raising  the  solution  to  boiling4.  The 
passage  of  H2S  and  boiling  are  continued  until  the  precipitated 
sulphur  flocculates  when  the  flask  is  removed  from  the  flame 
and  allowed  to  cool  .somewhat,  the  gas  flow  being  continued. 
The  solution  is  filtered  into  a second  Erlenmeyer  flask  and 
the  precipitate  washed  with  hot  water.  Precipitate  and  paper 
are  transferred  to  the  platinum  crucible  in  which  the  fusion 
was  made.  This  is  then  ignited  and  weighed5.  Total  oxides 
are  secured  by  subtracting  the  weight  obtained  from  that 
previously  obtained  for  crucible  plus  total  oxides.  A cor- 


1 The  removal  of  ammonium  salts  is  necessary  to  facilitate  complete  recovery 
of  aluminium  by  subsequent  precipitation  with  manganese. 

2 During  fusion  with  pyro-sulphate  care  is  necessary  to  prevent  loss  by  spat- 
tering. A convenient  method  is  to  place  crucible  (with  lid)  into  a nichrome 
triangle  held  in  a wooden  handle.  By  holding  this  in  one  hand  and  rotating  over 
flame  the  fusion  may  be  controlled  so  as  to  prevent  spattering.  By  means  of  a 
pair  of  tongs  held  in  the  other  hand  the  lid  may  be  removed  frequently  to  note 
progress  of  fusion.  Fusion  at  red  heat  for  a few  minutes  is  generally  sufficient 
to  produce  a clear  melt  which  indicates  complete  solution  of  oxides.  By  rotating 
the  crucible  so  that  the  liquid  melt  congeals  on  the  sides  of  the  crucible,  and  then 
plunging  it  while  still  hot  into  cold  water,  the  material  is  so  loosened  as  to  permit 
rapid  solution  in  hot  water. 

3 Passage  of  H2S  into  solution  is  accomplished  by  fitting  Erlenmeyer  flask 
with  2-hole  rubber  stopper,  one  hole  carrying  a glass  tube,  the  lower  end  of  which 
is  drawn  to  a fine  point  and  extends  to  the  bottom  of  the  flask.  This  serves 
as  the  inlet  tube  and  is  connected  to  Kipp  generator.  The  other  hole  of  stopper 
carries  a short  L-tube,  one  arm  of  which  extends  just  below  the  stopper.  This 
facilitates  testing  for  complete  removal  of  H2S  with  lead  acetate  paper  after 
reduction. 

4 When  work  can  be  so  arranged,  saturation  of  solution  in  the  cold  with  H2S, 
stoppering  the  flask,  and  allowing  it  to  stand  over  night  results  in  complete  reduc- 
tion and  in  the  formation  of  a precipitate  which  is  easily  filtered. 

5 The  ignited  residue  consists  of  platinum  dissolved  during  pyro-sulphate 
fusion,  together  with  materials  which  escaped  decomposition  by  hydrofluoric  and 
sulphuric  acids. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


7 


rection  is  obtained  later  for  the  amount  of  aluminium  in  the 
original  filtrates.  H2S  is  again  conducted  through  the  hot 
filtrate  obtained  as  previously  indicated  to  reduce  any  iron 
which  may  have  been  oxidized  by  contact  with  air  during 
filtration1.  The  flask  is  then  disconnected  and  C022  passed 
through  the  boiling  solution  until  the  H2S  is  entirely  expelled. 
This  point  can  be  determined  by  testing  with  lead  acetate 
paper3.  The  flask  ig  cooled  by  placing  in  cold  water,  con- 
tinuing the  passage  of  C02.  When  cool  the  iron  is  immediate- 
ly titrated  with  N/25  KMn04  solution  and  calculated  as 
grams  of  Fe203. 

Determination  of  Titanium. 

The  solution  in  which  iron  was  determined  is  transferred 
to  a 250-cc.  graduated  flask,  10  cc.  of  concentrated  H2S04  are 
added  and  the  solution  is  cooled  to  room  temperature.  Five 
cc.  of  3%  H2024  (free  from  fluorides)  are  added,  the  solu- 
tion is  brought  to  mark  with  water  and  thoroughly  mixed. 
The  amount  of  titanium  is  determined  by  comparing  the 
color  produced  with  that  of  a standard  Ti2(S04)3  solution 
similarly  peroxidized,  using  a Dubose  colorimeter5.  The 
titanium  is  calculated  as  grams  of  Ti02. 


Determination  of  Manganese. 

The  residue  obtained  by  the  evaporation  of  the  filtrates 
from  the  total  oxides  is  dissolved  in  about  75  cc.  of  water. 
Twenty  cc.  of  a saturated  solution  of  bromine  and  sufficient 
NH4OH  to  dispel  the  bromine  color  are  added  and  the  solu- 
tion is  brought  to  boiling.  In  order  to  insure  complete  preci- 
pitation the  solution  is  cooled,  more  bromine  water  and 
NH4OH  are  added,  and  it  is  again  brought  to  boiling.  If 
necessary  this  operation  is  repeated.  The  flocculant  precipi- 
tate is  filtered  upon  an  ashless  paper  and  washed  with  hot 


1 A slight  opalescence  due  to  sulphur  may  appear  at  this  point  but  does  not 
interfere  with  the  subsequent  permanganate  titration. 

2 Generated  in  Kipp  from  marble.  Gas  is  passed  through  wash  bottle  con- 
taining acid  CuSO<  solution  to  free  from  H2S. 

3 Prepared  by  soaking  filter  paper  in  3%  lead  acetate  solution  and  drying. 

4 Hydrogen  peroxide  should  be  free  from  fluorides  which  bleach  the  color 
produced.  Sulphuric  acid  tends  to  counteract  the  bleaching  effect  of  alkali  sul- 
phates present  (see  Merwin,  Am.  Jour.  Sci.,  Vol.  28,  p.  119). 

5 The  standard  titanium  solution  is  conveniently  made  up  by  dissolving  suffi- 
cient Ti2(S04)3  in  dilute  H2S04  so  that  the  resulting  solution  contains  titanium 
equivalent  to  0.0100  grams  Ti02  per  10  cc.  The  exact  strength  of  this  solution  is 
determined  by  precipitation  of  known  volume  with  NH^OH,  igniting  and  weighing 
up  the  Ti02  formed.  The  color  standard  is  made  up  by  oxidizing  10  cc.  of  above- 
mentioned  solution  with  H202  and  diluting  to  250  cc. 


8 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


water1.  Paper  and  precipitate  are  transferred  to  a previously 
weighed  platinum  crucible,  ignited,  and  weighed.  The  weight 
of  precipitate  represents  Mn304  plus  the  Al2Os  recovered 
from  the  original  filtrates.  The  precipitate  is  brought  into 
solution  by  fusion  with  about  1 gram  of  potassium  pyro- 
sulphate  and  dissolving  in  from  50  to  75  cc.  of  hot  water. 
The  solution  is  transferred  to  a 250-cc.  graduated  flask  and 
made  strongly  acid  with  H2S04.  Ten  cc.  of  .2%  AgN03  solu- 
tion are  added  for  each  milligram  of  metallic  Mn,  and  this 
followed  by  about  1 gram  solid  ammonium  persulphate.  The 
flask  is  placed  on  a steam  bath  until  a pink  color  appears  when 
it  is  removed  and  placed  in  cold  water.  When  color  is  fully 
developed  the  flask  is  filled  to  the  mark  and  contents  are 
thoroughly  mixed.  The  amount  of  manganese  is  determined 
by  comparison  in  Dubose  colorimeter  of  the  color  obtained 
with  that  of  a standard2  prepared  by  acidifying  a standard 
KMn04  solution,  reducing  with  sulphurous  acid,  re-oxidizing 
as  with  the  regular  sample,  and  diluting  appropriately.  The 
amount  of  Mn  determined  is  calculated  as  Mn304  and  this 
subtracted  from  the  weight  of  Mn304  + Al2Os  previously  ob- 
tained. The  difference  represents  the  A1203  recovered  from 
the  filtrate  from  the  total  oxide  precipitation  and  is  added  to 
the  total  oxides  previously  determined. 

Determination  of  Aluminium. 

Aluminium  is  determined  as  Al2Os  by  subtracting  the 
sum  of  the  weights  of  Fe203,  Ti02,  and  P2Os  from  the  cor- 
rected weight  of  total  oxides  (P2Os  determined  in  separate 
sample). 


1 A different  procedure,  permitting  the  determination  of  manganese  gravi- 
metrically,  may  be  used  instead  of  the  colorimetric  method  outlined.  However, 
it  is  more  difficult  to  get  accurate  results  gravimetrically  due  to  difficulty  in 
completely  separating  the  A1  and  Mn.  The  procedure  from  this  point  is  as  follows : 
Paper  and  precipitate  are  transferred  to  a small  beaker,  paper  is  broken  up  with 
glass  rod,  and  precipitate  is  dissolved  in  sulphurous  acid.  The  solution  is  heated 
to  boiling  and  enough  NH4OH  added  to  make  just  alkaline  to  litmus.  It  is  filtered 
immediately  and  the  precipitate  washed  several  times  with  hot  2%  NH4NO3  solu- 
tion. Precipitate  and  paper  are  transferred  to  weighed  platinum  crucible  and 
ignited.  Weight  of  residue  found  is  added  to  that  of  total  oxides  previously  de- 
termined. The  manganese  is  determined  in  the  filtrate  by  precipitation  with 
NH4OH  and  bromine  as  before.  (The  addition  of  sufficient  strong  KOH  solution 
to  keep  any  traces  of  Al(OH)3  in  solution  tends  to  give  better  results).  The 
flocculent  precipitate,  which  should  be  almost  black,  is  filtered  on  ashless  paper, 
washed  thoroughly  with  hot  water,  transferred  with  paper  to  weighed  platinum 
crucible  and  ignited  to  constant  weight.  The  residue  consists  of  Mn304  and  is 
calculated  to  MnO.  Factor  = 0.93006  Log  = 1.06851. 

2 The  standard  is  conveniently  made  to  contain  .0025  g.  MnO  per  250  cc. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


9 


Determination  of  Calcium. 

The  filtrate  from  the  manganese  precipitation  is  regulated 
to  a volume  of  150  cc.  and  heated  to  boiling.  Ten  cc.  of 
saturated  ammonium  oxalate  are  added  slowly,  the  solution 
being  kept  boiling  meanwhile.  The  solution  is  further  boiled 
for  15  minutes  and  filtered  through  a close-textured  filter 
(C.  S.  & S.  Blue  Ribbon),  the  precipitate  being  washed  free 
from  oxalates  with  hot  water.  The  precipitate  is  dissolved 
into  an  Erlenmeyer  flask  by  passing  warm  dilute  H2S04 
(1:10  at  about  70°  C.)  through  the  filter.  The  oxalic  acid 
formed  is  titrated  warm  with  N/25  KMn04  and  the  calcium 
calculated  as  CaO.  One  cc.  N/25  KMn04  = 0.00112  g.  CaO. 
The  precipitation  of  calcium  is  never  complete,  as  a certain 
amount  of  calcium  oxalate  is  always  required  to  saturate  the 
solution  in  which  the  precipitation  is  made.  This  amount  is 
practically  constant  and  equal  under  the  aforementioned  con- 
ditions to  0.0007  g.  CaO. 

Determination  of  Magnesium. 

To  the  cold  filtrate  from  the  Ca  precipitation  are  added 
5 cc.  of  10%  solution  of  microcosmic  salt  (NaNH4HP04)  and 
10  cc.  of  NH4OH  (1:  1).  Precipitation  is  started  by  stirring 
and  rubbing  the  walls  of  beaker  with  a glass  rod.  After 
being  allowed  to  stand  over  night  the  precipitate  is  brought 
upon  a close-textured  filter  paper,  washed  with  cold  2% 
NH4OH,  and  dissolved  back  into  the  original  beaker  with 
warm,  dilute  HC1  (1:10)  and  hot  water1.  The  magnesium 
is  re-precipitated  in  a volume  of  about  75  cc.  as  follows:  The 
solution  is  made  neutral  or  just  alkaline  to  litmus  with 
NH4OH  and  1 cc.  of  10%  NaNH4HP04  solution  is  added. 
After  standing  15  minutes,  10  cc.  of  concentrated  NH4OH 
(28%  NH3)  are  added  and  the  solution  is  allowed  to  stand 
two  hours.  The  precipitate  is  filtered  upon  a close-textured 
ashless  paper  and  washed  with  2%  NH4OH  solution.  Filter 
and  precipitate  are  transferred  to  weighed  platinum  crucible, 
ignited,  and  weighed.  The  calcium  which  failed  to  precipi- 
tate as  oxalate  appears  in  the  ignited  residue  as  Ca3(P04)2  and 
necessitates  a correction  of  .0013  g.  equivalent  to  the  .0007  g. 

1 A re-precipitation  is  necessary  since  if  the  first  precipitate  is  ignited  directly 
the  residue  may  not  contain  all  the  magnesium  as  pyro-phosphate  (See  Hille- 
brand,  bulletin  422,  United  States  Geological  Survey,  p.  123). 


10 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


CaO  added  to  the  calcium  obtained  by  titration1.  The  mag- 
nesium exists  in  the  residue  as  Mg2P207  and  is  calculated  as 
MgO.  Factor  = 0.36207,  Log.  = 1.55879. 

Blank  Determination. 

A blank  is  run  using  the  same  amounts  of  reagents  and 
the  appropriate  corrections  are  applied2. 


DETERMINATION  OF  POTASSIUM. 

The  fusion  for  potassium  is  made  according  to  the  method 
of  Laurence  Smith  for  total  alkalies.  Potassium  is  precipi- 
tated as  chloroplatinate  without  previous  removal  of  calcium 
which  is  subsequently  removed  by  means  of  acidulated  alcohol 
wash.  (See  Moore,  J.  Am.  Chem.  Soc.,  Vol.  XX,  pp.  340-343.) 
Potassium  is  weighed  as  chloroplatinate. 

Solutions. 

Platinic  Chloride  Solution. — Eighteen  grams  of  the  salt 
are  dissolved  in  water,  made  slightly  acid  with  HC1,  and 
diluted  to  one  liter. 

Acidulated  Alcohol  Wash. — To  3000  cc.  of  95%  alcohol 
are  added  230  cc.  of  HC1,  sp.  gr.  1.20.  HC1  gas  is  conducted 
into  the  mixture  until  it  shows  a normality  of  approximately 
2.25  by  titration.  The  mixture  must  be  kept  cool  during  this 
process.  The  HC1  gas  is  generated  by  treating  c.  p.  NaCl 
with  concentrated  sulphuric  acid. 


1 The  amount  of  CaO  precipitated  with  magnesium  was  found  to  be  quite 
uniform  in  amount  and  equal  under  outlined  conditions  to  .0007  g.  CaO.  This 
correction  is  the  same  as  that  found  necessary  by  Robinson  (bulletin  122,  United 
States  Bureau  of  Soils).  The  calcium  occurs  in  the  magnesium  residue  as 
Ca3(P04)2  (See  Hillebrand,  bulletin  422,  United  States  Geological  Survey,  p.  127). 

The  exact  amount  of  this  correction  for  any  given  set  of  conditions  may  be 
determined  by  method  outlined  by  Hillebrand  as  follows  : 

The  magnesium  pyro-phosphate  is  dissolved  in  a little  dilute  sulphuric  acid, 
and  enough  absolute  alcohol  added  to  make  from  90  to  95%  of  final  volume. 
After  several  hours  the  fine  precipitate  of  calcium  sulphate  is  brought  on  a close- 
textured  filter  and  washed  free  of  phosphoric  acid  with  95%  alcohol.  It  is  then 
dissolved  in  hot  water,  acidified  with  hydrochloric  acid,  made  alkaline  with 
ammonia,  heated  to  boiling  and  the  calcium  precipitated  by  adding  a few  crystals 
of  ammonium  oxalate.  In  a short  time  it  may  be  filtered,  ignited,  and  weighed 
as  CaO. 

2 A blank  run  on  the  reagents  used  in  this  laboratory  gave  the  following 
values : 

Fe203  = .0007  gram. 

A1203  = .0011  gram. 

Ti02  = none. 

MnO  = none. 

CaO  = .0004  gram. 

MgO  = .0002  gram. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


11 


80%  Alcohol  Wash. — Made  by  diluting  95%  alcohol  to 
a specific  gravity  of  .864  at  15.6°  C. 

Gladding  Wash. — Made  by  dissolving  200  grams  of  am- 
monium chloride  in  water  and  diluting  to  1 liter. 

Procedure. 

Five-tenths  of  a gram  of  100-mesh  soil  is  weighed  and 
thoroughly  ground  with  .5  gram  of  NH4C1  in  agate  mortar. 
Four  grams  of  calcium  carbonate  are  added  and  the  mixture  is 
ground  until  well  mixed.  Sufficient  calcium  carbonate  is 
placed  in  a 35-cc.  platinum  crucible  to  cover  the  bottom  and 
the  mixture  added  by  first  brushing  onto  a sheet  of  glazed 
paper  and  then  transferring  to  crucible.  About  .5  gram  of 
calcium  carbonate  is  ground  in  the  mortar,  brushed  onto  the 
paper  and  transferred  to  crucible  together  with  brushings 
from  paper  on  which  mortar  has  stood.  After  tapping  to 
settle  contents,  the  crucible  is  covered  with  lid  and  placed  in 
a hole  in  an  asbestos  board  held  in  an  inclined  position.  The 
hole  in  the  asbestos  board  should  be  of  such  size  as  to  allow 
about  two-thirds  of  the  depth  of  the  crucible  to  project  below 
the  board.  The  crucible  is  first  heated  with  a low  flame  until 
the  odor  of  ammonia  is  no  longer  noticeable  (10  to  15  minutes) 
when  the  flame  is  turned  up  and  the  crucible  heated  at  the  full 
heat  of  a Scimatco  burner  for  45  minutes.  The  lid  of  the 
crucible  should  stay  well  below  red  heat  during  fusion.  After 
cooling,  the  fused  mass  is  loosened  with  a glass  rod  and 
transferred  to  a porcelain  casserole.  The  lid  is  washed  with 
hot  water  and  the  crucible  filled  with  hot  water  and  allowed 
to  stand  for  a few  minutes.  The  contents  of  the  crucible  are 
washed  into  the  casserole  and  the  fusion  is  crushed  with  an 
agate  pestle.  The  casserole  is  covered  with  a watch  glass  and 
digested  on  the  water  bath  for  two  hours  or  allowed  to  stand 
over  night.  After  thorough  slaking,  the  mixture  is  stirred 
and  the  liquid  decanted  into  a coarse  alundum  filtering  cru- 
cible1 receiving  the  filtrate  in  a 400-cc.  beaker.  Boiling  water 
is  added,  the  mixture  stirred  and  again  decanted  into  filter. 
This  is  repeated  two  or  three  times  when  the  whole  fusion 
is  transferred  to  the  crucible  and  washed  with  hot  water  until 
the  filtrate  measures  about  300  cc.  Ten  cc.  of  HC1,  sp.  gr. 

1 Filtering  through  a coarse  alundum  filtering  crucible  was  found  preferable 
to  filtering  through  paper  since  the  former  eliminates  a slimy  material  which 
seems  to  be  derived  from  the  action  of  caustic  lime  upon  the  filter  paper  and  which 
is  difficult  to  wash  out  in  the  final  filtration. 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


1.20,  are  added  and  the  filtrate  is  evaporated  to  dryness  on 
the  water  bath,  taken  up  with  hot  water  and  filtered  into 
150-cc.  beaker.  The  filter  is  washed  until  filtrate  nearly  fills 
beaker.  One  cc.  of  concentrated  HC1  and  5 cc.  of  platinic 
chloride  solution  are  added  and  the  filtrate  is  evaporated  on 
the  water  bath  until  residue  just  solidifies.  The  residue  is 
treated  with  from  15  to  20  cc.  of  acidulated  alcohol  and  stirred 
until  the  calcium  chloride  all  dissolves.  The  liquid  is  de- 
canted into  previously  weighed  Gooch  crucible,  using  disc  of 
“S.  & S.  Blue  Ribbon”  filter  paper  instead  of  asbestos  mat  as 
filtering  medium1.  The  precipitate  is  transferred  to  crucible 
and  thoroughly  washed  with  80%  alcohol.  It  is  then  washed 
10  or  12  times  with  small  amounts  of  Gladding  wash,  follow- 
ed by  10  or  12  washings  with  80%  alcohol.  The  crucible  is 
placed  in  drying  oven  at  115°  C.  for  20  minutes,  then  cooled 
and  weighed.  A blank  is  run  on  the  reagents  used  and  sub- 
tracted from  the  weight  of  K2PtCl6  obtained. 

k2 

Factor  = 0.1608  Log.  = 1.20643. 

K2PtCl6 

DETERMINATION  OF  PHOSPHORUS. 

Solutions. 

Magnesium  Nitrate  Solution. — 1000  grams  of  magnesium 
nitrate  are  dissolved  in  1000  cc.  of  water. 

Aqua  Regia. — Three  volumes  HC1,  sp.  gr.  1.19,  and  one 
volume  HN03,  sp.  gr.  1.42  are  mixed  and  allowed  to  stand 
until  fumes  cease  to  be  given  off. 

Molybdate  Solution. — 100  grams  of  molybdic  acid,  Baker’s 
c.  p.  99%  are  dissolved  in  144  cc.  of  ammonium  hydroxide, 
specific  gravity  0.90,  and  271  cc.  of  water.  The  solution  thus 
obtained  is  poured  slowly  with  stirring  into  489  cc.  of  nitric 
acid,  specific  gravity  1.42,  and  1148  cc.  of  water.  A few  drops 
of  dilute  sodium  phosphate  solution  are  added  and  the 
molybdate  solution  allowed  to  stand  several  days  in  a warm 
place.  The  clear  solution  is  then  siphoned  off  and  preserved 
in  a glass  stoppered  bottle. 

1 Discs  of  “S.  & S.  Blue  Ribbon”  filter  paper  are  used  in  preference  to  asbestos 
since  they  permit  more  rapid  filtration,  are  less  liable  to  lose  in  weight,  require 
less  washing,  and  dry  more  quickly.  After  drying,  the  crucible  must  be  handled 
carefully  to  prevent  loss  of  precipitate. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


13 


Wash  Solutions. — No.  1 solution  containing  approxi- 
mately 1%  nitric  acid  and  3%  ammonium  nitrate  is  made  by 
adding  sufficient  water  to  30  grams  of  ammonium  nitrate  and 
10  cc.  of  nitric  acid,  sp.  gr.  1.42,  to  make  1 liter  of  solution. 
No.  2 solution  containing  3%  ammonium  nitrate  is  made  by 
dissolving  30  grams  ammonium  nitrate  in  one  liter  of  water. 

Standard  HNO,  Solution. — Solution  is  made  to  contain 
0.009339  gram  HNOs  per  cc.  equivalent  to  0.0002  gram  phos- 
phorus as  ammonium-phospho-molybdate. 

Standard  NaOH  Solution  (Free  from  carbonates). — Solu- 
tion is  mde  to  contain  .005929  gram  NaOH  per  cc.,  equivalent 
to  0.0002  gram  phosphorus  as  ammonium-phospho-molybdate. 
Enough  BaCl2  is  added  to  precipitate  any  carbonates  as  BaC03. 

Phenolphthalein  Solution. — A 5%  phenolphthalein  solu- 
tion in  95%  alcohol. 

Procedure. 

Five  grams  of  100-mesh  soil  are  weighed  and  transferred 
to  a 100-cc.  porcelain  dish.  To  this  5 cc.  of  Mg(N03)2  solution 
are  added,  the  mixture  brought  to  dryness  on  a water  bath, 
and  dried  one  hour  in  electric  oven  at  from  110°  to  120°  C.  It 
is  then  ignited  until  all  organic  matter  is  burned  off,  the 
ignition  being  started  with  a low  flame  and  finished  at  low 
red  heat.  When  cool,  the  mass  is  moistened  with  a small 
amount  of  water  and  broken  up  with  a glass  rod.  The  dish 
is  covered  with  a watch  glass  and  20  cc.  of  aqua  regia  are 
added  through  the  lip  after  which  the  mixture  is  digested  on 
boiling  water  bath  for  two  hours  with  occasional  stirring  to 
break  up  lumps.  The  material  is  transferred  to  a 250-cc. 
graduated  flask  by  washing  through  a glass  funnel,  and,  after 
cooling  to  room  temperature,  made  up  to  mark  with  water. 
After  thorough  shaking  the  solution  is  either  filtered  through 
a dry  folded  filter  into  a dry  beaker  or  allowed  to  stand  over 
night.  If  filtered,  200  cc.  of  the  clear  filtrate,  or  in  the  latter 
case,  200  cc.  of  clear  supernatant  liquid  are  pipetted  off  and 
evaporated  to  dryness  on  water  bath  in  beaker  of  400  cc. 
capacity.  The  residue  is  taken  up  with  10  cc.  of  dilute  nitric 
acid  (1:4  )and  again  brought  to  dryness,  after  which  it  is 
dehydrated  for  1 hour  in  oven  at  from  110°  to  120°  C.  The 
residue  is  taken  up  with  5 cc.  HN03,  sp.  gr.  1.42,  and  hot 
water,  and  filtered  with  suction  into  250-cc.  Erlenmeyer  flask, 
thoroughly  washing  filter  with  hot  water.  The  filtrate  is 
evaporated  to  a volume  of  approximately  50  cc.  on  water 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159' 


bath1.  Five  grams  of  ammonium  nitrate  are  added  and  when 
in  solution  20  cc.  of  molybdate  solution  are  added.  The  flask 
is  shaken  on  a mechanical  shaker  for  15  minutes  and  then 
allowed  to  stand  in  oven  at  from  60°  to  65°  C.  for  two  hours. 
The  precipitate  is  filtered  upon  a 9-cm.  filter  (S.  & S.  Blue 
Ribbon  filter  or  paper  of  similar  quality)  and  washed  three 
times  with  wash  solution  No.  1.  The  precipitate  is  dissolved 
back  into  original  flask  with  warm  ammonium  hydroxide 
solution  (1:9)  and  the  filter  washed  thoroughly  with  hot 
water2.  If  filtrate  exceeds  50  cc.  it  is  reduced  to  this  volume 
on  the  water  bath.  Three  grams  of  ammonium  nitrate  are 
then  added,  followed  by  3 cc.  of  molybdate  solution.  (With 

1 The  greatest  difficulty  in  the  determination  of  phosphorus  lies  in  the  proper 
adjustment  of  concentrations  in  the  precipitating  solution  so  as  to  bring  about 
complete  precipitation  of  all  phosphorus  and  yet  produce  a precipitate  free  from 
molybdic  acid,  and  of  good  physical  condition.  Complete  precipitation  is  favored 
by  high  temperature,  large  excess  of  molybdate  solution,  presence  of  NH4N03,  and 
long  standing.  (Hibbard,  J.  Ind.  & Eng.  Chem.  Vol.  5,  pp.  998-1010.)  However, 
these  factors  also  all  tend  to  cause  the  precipitation  of  molybdic  acid.  To  counter-, 
act  this  tendency  for  Mo03  to  separate,  a certain  amount  of  HNOs  is  used,  this 
acting  through  its  solvent  effect  on  Mo03.  Too  great  an  excess  of  HN03,  however, 
causes  solubility  of  ammonium-phospho-mol3’'bdate  and  low  results. 

In  working  with  soils  there  are  present  in  some  cases  large  amounts  of  iron 
salts  which,  as  shown  by  Hibbard,  tend  to  cause  incomplete  precipitations,  but 
this  may  be  remedied  by  a large  excess  of  molybdate  solution.  Robinson  (See  J. 
Ind.  & Eng.  Chem.  Vol.  8,  pp.  148-151)  states  that  soils  contain  appreciable 
amounts  of  vanadium  (0.01  to  0.08%)  which  cause  low  results  when  precipita- 
tion is  carried  out  under  the  conditions  necessary  for  the  determination  of  phos- 
phorus by  direct  titration  of  the  yellow  precipitate.  This  he  shows  to  be  due  to 
incomplete  precipitation  of  phosphorus  and  remedies  by  reduction  of  vanadium 
with  ferrous  sulphate  and  precipitation  of  phosphorus  in  the  cold  with  mechanical 
agitation.  However,  he  writes.  “By  taking  precautions  to  make  the  precipitation 
of  phospho-molybdate  complete  by  means  of  comparatively  large  excess  of  reagents, 
and  by  digestion  and  mechanical  agitation,  the  influence  of  the  amount  of  vanadium 
ordinarily  found  in  soil  can  be  avoided  without  reducing  the  vanadium,  provided 
the  yellow  precipitate  is  converted  to  magnesium  ammonium  phosphate.”  The 
error  due  to  presence  of  vanadium  is  probabty  much  decreased  if  not  entirely 
eliminated  by  a second  precipitation  if  the  conditions  of  the  first  precipitation  are 
such  as  to  induce  complete  precipitation  of  phosphorus. 

On  account  of  the  difficulty  in  overcoming  the  above-mentioned  errors,  and  at 
the  same  time  obtaining  a precipitate  free  from  Mo03  and  containing  all  the  phos- 
phorus as  ammonium-phospho-molybdate  it  was  thought  advisable  to  make  two- 
precipitations,  the  first  being  made  under  conditions  inducing  complete  precipitation 
but  not  tending  toward  absolute  purity  of  precipitate,  while  the  second  precipi- 
tation, made  in  the  absence  of  all  but  traces  of  impurities,  would  be  more  easily 
adjusted  to  obtain  complete  precipitation  with  freedom  from  Mo03. 

Conditions  of  first  precipitation  : 

Volume  — 70  cc. 

Phosphorus  — .0008  to  .0080  gram. 

(NH4)2Mo04  — approximately  2%. 

HN03  — approximately  8%. 

Mechanical  shaking,  15  minutes  in  cold. 

Digestion  at  60°  to  65°  C.  for  two  hours. 

Conditions  of  second  precipitation : 

Volume  — 50  cc. 

Phosphorus  — .0008  to  .0080  gram. 

(NH4)oMo04  — 0.4  to  1%  (About  double  theoretical  amount). 

HNG3  — 2%. 

NH4N03  — 6%. 

Precipitation  at  exactly  60°  C.  with  mechanical  shaking  for  3 minutes.. 

Equation  : 

NH4H0PO4  + 12NH4Mo04  + 22HN03  = (NH4)3P04(Mo03)  ,£  + 22NH4N03  + 12H20 

2 The  appearance  of  a feathery  white  precipitate  at  this  point  indicates  in- 
complete removal  of  bases,  iron,  aluminium,  and  more  particularly  titanium,  which 
separate,  probably  as  phosphates,  in  the  alkaline  solution.  Robinson  (previous 
reference)  found  that  a second  precipitation  reduced  the  amount  of  feathery  pre- 
cipitate to  a practically  negligible  quantity. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


15- 


soils  high  in  phosphorus,  as  indicated  by  a large  amount  of 
yellow  precipitate  in  first  precipitation,  from  5 to  7 cc.  of 
molybdate  solution  should  be  used).  If  a precipitate  appears 
at  this  point  it  is  re-dissolved  by  the  addition  of  a little  am- 
monium hydroxide.  The  solution  is  then  brought  to  60°  C. 
(conveniently  kept  in  oven  at  that  temperature)  and  concen- 
trated nitric  acid  added  from  burette,  a drop  at  a time,  until 
the  color  of  solution^  turns  permanently  yellow,  after  which 
just  one  cc.  more  is  added  and  the  flask  shaken  for  three 
minutes.  The  solution  is  filtered  immediately  and  the  pre- 
cipitate washed  three  times  with  wash  solution  No.  1,  three 
times  with  wash  solution  No.  2,  and  finally  three  times  with 
water.  The  precipitate  and  filter  are  returned  to  flask  in 
which  precipitation  was  made  and  25  cc.  of  standard  NaOH 
solution  are  added  from  an  automatic  overflow  pipette,  rotat- 
ing the  flask  so  as  to  dissolve  any  precipitate  adhering  to  the 
inner  surface.  (If  soil  contains  more  than  0.100%  phosphorus, 
50  cc.  of  NaOH  should  be  added.)  The  sides  of  flask  are 
washed  down  with  distilled  water  and  the  filter  is  broken  up 
with  a glass  rod.  When  yellow  precipitate  is  all  dissolved, 
40  cc.  of  C02-free  distilled  water  are  added  and  the  solution  is 
titrated  with  standard  HNOs  solution  using  phenolphthalein 
indicator.  When  approaching  the  end  point  in  the  titration 
the  flask  is  stoppered  with  rubber  stopper  and  shaken  to  break 
up  the  filter  thoroughly  after  which  the  titration  is  completed1 2. 

cc.  of  NaOH  — cc.  of  HNOv 

Percent  P = 

200 

DETERMINATION  OF  TOTAL  NITROGEN. 

Solutions. 

Alkali  Solution. — Ten  pounds  Greenbank’s  alkali  and  125 
grams  K2S  are  dissolved  in  5 liters  of  water. 

Standard  Acid. — 5/14  normal  H2S04  is  used.  Arranged 
to  deliver  10  cc.  from  automatic  overflow  pipette. 

Standard  Alkali. — N/14  NaOH  is  used,  1 cc.  equivalent 
to  1 mg.  N. 

Procedure. 

Ten  .grams  of  100-mesh  soil3  are  digested  in  800  cc. 
Kjeldahl  flask  with  20  cc.4  concentrated  H2S04  and  0.4  g. 

1 A blank  determination  should  be  run,  using  the  same  quantity  of  reagents 
as  in  regular  determination. 

2 Equation  used  in  calculation  : 

( NH4 ) 3PO4  ( M0O3)  12  + 23Na0H  = (NH4)2HP04  + 11H20  + NH4NaMo04 

3 The  use  of  soil  ground  to  100  mesh  largely  eliminates  bumping  during 
digestion. 

4 Soils  high  in  clay  or  organic  matter  may  require  25  cc.  H2S04  with  subse- 
quent use  of  60  cc.  of  strong  alkali. 


16  W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 

metallic  mercury  (6  drops  from  burette)  at  low  heat  for  20 
minutes.  Five  to  ten  grams  K2S04  are  added  and  the  diges- 
tion continued  at  full  heat  for  1 y2  hours  or  until  residue  is 
white.  When  cool  300  cc.  of  water  and  a few  pieces  of  mossy 
zinc  are  added,  50  cc.  of  alkali  solution  poured  down  neck  of 
flask,  and  the  ammonia  distilled  into  10  cc.  of  5/14  normal 
H2S04.  The  distillate,  which  should  measure  about  200  cc.,  is 
titrated  with  N/14  NaOH,  using  alizarin  red  indicator.  A 
blank  is  run  on  the  reagents.  Duplicates  should  check  within 
0.1  cc.  equivalent  to  0.001%. 

Titration  of  blank  — Titration  of  sample. 

Percent  N = 

100 


DETERMINATION  OF  TOTAL  CARBON. 

The  method  used1  is  an  adaptation  with  modifications  of 
the  method  described  by  Fleming2  for  the  rapid  determination 
of  carbon  in  iron  and  steel.  It  depends  upon  the  direct  com- 
bustion of  the  soil  in  a current  of  oxygen,  the  gases  being 
dried  by  phosphoric  anhydride  and  the  carbon  dioxide  ab- 
sorbed in  soda-lime  and  determined  by  weight. 


A — High  Pressure  Oxygen  Tank,  150  gal.,  1800  lbs.  pressure.  (S.  S.  White 
Dental  Co.,  c.  p.  oxygen). 

B — Rubber  Bag,  1 gal.  capacity.  C — 30  percent  KOH  Solution. 

D — Granular,  Anhydrous  CaClo  (below),  Separated  by  Layer  of  Asbestos  Fiber 
from  20-mesh  Soda-Lime  (above). 

E — Mercury  Valve  Bottle.  F — Electric  Combustion  Furnace.  H — Rheostat. 

I — Silica  Combustion  Tube,  Glazed,  24  in.  long  by  % in.  inside  diameter. 

J — U-tube  Containing  2-mm.  Granulated  Zinc. 

K — P205  Supported  on  Glass  Wool.  L — Fleming  Soda-Lime  Absorption  Bulb. 

M — Suction  Bottle.  N — Safety  Valve,  Ground  Glass  (shown  below  at  NP- 

O — Mercury  Suction  Gauge.  P — 10  gal.  Suction  Tank. 

Q — Water  Suction  Pump.  R — Asbestos  Plug.  S — Two-way  Stopcock. 


1 Published  in  Jour.  Ind.  & Eng.  Chem.,  July,  1916,  Vol.  8,  pp.  637-639. 

2 The  Iron  Age,  Vol.  93,  pp.  64-66. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


17 


In  the  apparatus  shown  in  Fig.  1,  the  gas  enters  bottle  C, 
through  a Folin  absorption  tube.  The  KOH  solution  frees 
the  oxygen  from  any  traces  of  carbon  dioxide.  D dries  the 
gas  and  insures  freedom  from  carbon  dioxide.  The  mercury 
valve  bottle  prevents  gas  from  backing  into  bottles  C and  D. 
The  furnace  F is  an  Eimer  and  Amend,  having  replaceable 
heating  units,  but  is  modified  by  installing  4 platinum- 
nichrome  thermocouples  connected  in  series  to  galvanometer 
G,  so  as  to  show  the  furnace  temperature  at  all  times ; the 
scale  on  the  galvonometer  is  calibrated  by  comparison  with  a 
standard  pyrometer.  The  tube  I contains,  just  within  the  exit 
end  of  the  furnace,  5 in.  of  coarsely  granular  cupric  oxide,  held 
in  position  by  2 plugs  of  asbestos  fiber.  J,  containing  granular 
zinc,  serves  to  stop  sulphur,  chlorine  or  acid  fumes ; it  also 
acts  as  a filter.  K removes  moisture  from  the  gases,  and  as 
the  P205  liquefies  it  is  absorbed  by  the  glass  wool,  more 
anhydride  being  added  from  above.  The  lower  portion  of 
the  absorption  bulb  L is  filled  with  alternate  layers  of  Baker’s 
20-  and  40-mesh  soda-lime,  the  quantity  used  being  sufficient 
for  60  or  more  determinations  of  total  carbon  in  average  soils. 
The  upper  portion  contains  P2Os,  which  insures  the  gases 
leaving  the  bulb  with  the  same  moisture  content  as  on  enter- 
ing. The  valve  N prevents  accidental  drawing  of  mercury 
from  O into  M and  facilitates  regulation  of  suction.  The 
suction  tank  P gives  more  uniform  suction  than  the  pump 
alone,  and  one  exhaustion  serves  for  15  or  more  determina- 
tions. R is  made  by  joining  two  perforated  discs  of  asbestos 
board  by  means  of  a stiff  nichrome  wire  (B.  & S.  gauge  20) 
so  as  to  leave  a loop  at  one  end  by  which  the  plug  may  be 
withdrawn  from  the  combustion  tube.  Between  the  two 
asbestos  discs  is  some  loose  asbestos  fiber,  held  in  place  by  a 
spiral  of  nichrome  wire.  The  stop-cock  S permits  the  drawing 
of  oxygen  through  the  combustion  tube  without  allowing  it 
to  pass  through  the  absorption  end  of  the  train.  The  whole 
apparatus  is  permanently  set  up  in  an  electrically  lighted  case 
with  sliding  glass  doors. 


Procedure. 

A two-gram  sample  of  soil1  is  weighed,  mixed  with  2 
to  3 g.  of  40-mesh  alundum  and  transferred  to  an  alundum 
boat2.  Before  introducing  the  sample  into  the  combustion 

1 With  soils  containing  over  5 percent  total  carbon,  a one-gram  sample  is 
sufficient. 

2 Convenient  size  of  the  boat  for  two-gram  sample  is  3%  in.  by  % in.,  out- 
side dimensions.  Alundum  mixed  with  soil  increases  porosity  and  insures  access  of 
oxygen  to  all  parts.  “R.  R.  Alundum,  alkali-free,  especially  prepared  for  carbon 
determinations,”  is  used. 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


tube1  it  is  necessary  to  see  that  the  exit  tube  of  the  absorp- 
tion bulb  is  disconnected  from  the  suction  bottle  at  the  point 
(a),  that  the  two-way  stopcock  S stands  in  a position  to  permit 
gas  entering  the  absorption  end  of  the  train,  and  that  the  screw 
clamps  (b)  and  (c)  and  stopcock  (d)  are  closed.  The  furnace2 
should  stand  at  a temperature  of  from  925°  to  950°  C.  The 
boat  is  introduced  into  the  end  of  the  combustion  tube,  follow- 
ed by  asbestos  plug  R.  Both  are  then  pushed  to  the  center 
of  the  furnace  by  means  of  a stiff  nichrome  wire  and  connec- 
tion (e)  is  quickly  made.  After  a few  seconds  to  allow  the  gas 
• immediately  produced  to  escape,  screw  clamp  (b)  is  opened 
and  connection  (a)  closed.  Sufficient  suction,  measured  by 
mercury  gauge  O,  to  produce  somewhat  more  than  desired 
rate  of  gas  flow  (previously  determined)  is  then  applied.  The 
gas  flow  is  regulated  by  adjusting  stopcock  (d)  so  that  750  cc. 
to  1000  cc.  of  oxygen  pass  through  the  apparatus  in  20  minutes, 
which  is  sufficient  time  to  complete  combustion3.  The  tem- 
perature is  maintained  at  from  925°  to  950°  C.  throughout  the 
•combustion.  The  absorption  tube4  is  finally  disconnected, 
both  inlet  and  exit  closed,  allowed  to  stand  on  the  balance 
pan  15  minutes  and  weighed5. 

Duplicate  determinations  should  check  within  .01%  total 
carbon,  equivalent  to  about  0.0007  g.  C02  on  a two-gram 
sample. 


1 Before  starting  a single  determination,  or  a series  of  determinations,  the 
apparatus  should  be  connected  up  and  sufficient  oxygen  passed  through  to  burn 
out  any  carbon  contained  in  the  asbestos  plugs  and  to  sweep  out  the  air  originally 
in  the  train.  The  further  passage  of  oxygen  should  produce  no  increase  in  the 
weight  of  absorption  bulb. 

2 Care  must  be  observed  to  prevent  the  furnace  attaining  a temperature  of 
much  over  1000°  C.,  as  cupric  oxide  fuses  at  1064°  C.  and  when  this  occurs  the 
silica  tube  slags  with  the  fused  oxide  and  invariably  cracks  on  cooling.  A tem- 
perature of  over  825°  C.  is  necessary  to  insure  decomposition  of  carbonates. 

3 Drawing  the  gas  through  by  suction  is  found  preferable  to  forcing  it  through 
by  pressure,  it  being  much  easier  to  prevent  leakage.  Any  error  from  this  source 
would  be  comparatively  insignificant  as  the  leakage  would  be  inward  rather  than 
outward.  The  content  of  C02  in  ordinary  air  is  such  that  it  would  require  an  inward 
leakage  of  approximately  160  cc.  to  cause  an  increase  of  0.0001  g.  in  the  weight 
of  the  absorption  bulb.  All  connections,  where  possible,  were  made  of  rubber 
stoppers,  these  being  less  liable  to  develop  leaks  than  connections  of  rubber  tubing. 

4 The  Fleming  absorption  bulb  was  found  to  be  very  efficient,  it  being  possi- 
ble to  increase  the  rate  of  gas  flow  5 to  8 times  that  actually  used  without  danger 
-of  incomplete  absorption  of  C02. 

5 Due  to  the  rather  large  size  of  the  absorption  bulb,  some  precaution  is  neces- 
sary in  weighing  to  prevent  errors  due  to  differences  in  the  amounts  of  moisture 
condensed  on  the  surface  of  the  bulb  and  to  changes  in  temperature  and  atmos- 
pheric pressure.  By  using  a second  bulb  or  glass  bottle  of  approximately  the 
same  weight,  containing  about  the  same  quantity  of  soda-lime,  as  a tare  in  weigh- 
ing, these  errors  are  rendered  insignificant. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


19 


DETERMINATION  OF  TOTAL  SULPHUR. 

Procedure. 

Two  grams  of  100-mesh  soil  are  mixed  in  a platinum 
■crucible  with  7 grams  of  anhydrous  Na2COs  of  low  sulphur 
■content  and  .5  gram  KN03.  The  crucible  is  covered  with  lid 
and  placed  in  a hole' in  an  asbestos  board  supported  in  a hori- 
zontal position.  The  hole  in  the  asbestos  board  should  be 
just  large  enough  to  permit  about  three-fourths  of  the  crucible 
to  extend  below  the  board.  The  board  itself  should  be  large 
enough  to  prevent,  as  far  as  possible,  the  gases  of  the  flame 
from  coming  in  contact  with  the  top  of  the  crucible.  The 
mixture  is  heated  to  quiet  fusion  with  the  full  heat  of  a 
Scimatco  burner.  The  crucible  is  now  grasped  in  the  tongs 
and  rotated  in  such  a way  as  to  cause  the  melt  to  solidify  upon 
the  sides  of  the  crucible,  and  while  still  hot,  plunged  into  cold 
water  to  loosen  the  melt.  Crucible  and  lid  are  placed  in  a 
400-cc.  beaker,  covered  with  boiling  water,  and  allowed  to 
stand  with  occasional  stirring  until  melt  dissolves.  The  solu- 
tion is  then  filtered  onto  an  11-cm.  filter  into  a 400-cc.  beaker 
and  the  residue  washed  with  water  until  the  filtrate  measures 
250  to  300  cc.  A drop  of  alcohol  is  added  to  the  cold  filtrate 
to  reduce  any  maganese,  and  then  HC1  from  a burette  with 
stirring  until  the  solution  is  acid  to  litmus,  avoiding  an  excess. 
The  solution  is  heated  to  boiling  and  5 cc.  of  10%  BaCl2  solu- 
tion added  with  stirring.  Boiling  is  continued  for  5 minutes 
and  the  solution  allowed  to  stand  over  night.  The  precipitated 
BaS04  is  filtered  onto  a close-textured  ashless  paper  (S.  & 
S.  Blue  Ribbon)  and  washed  with  hot  water  until  free  from 
chlorides.  Paper  and  precipitate  are  transferred  to  weighed 
platinum  crucible  and  ignited  and  sulphur  weighed  as  BaS04. 
If  care  is  taken  to  have  the  solution  cold  and  the  volume 
about  300  cc.  when  neutralized  with  IiCl,  there  is  no  danger 
of  contamination  of  precipitate  with  silica.  If  such  con- 
tamination occurs,  the  residue  after  ignition  must  be  treated 
with  a few  drops  of  hydrofluoric  acid  and  one  drop  of  sul- 
phuric acid.  This  is  evaporated  to  dryness  and  the  crucible 
re-ignited.  A blank  determination  is  run  on  the  regeants 
employed. 

S 

= 0.1374  Log.  1.13793 

BaS04 


Factor 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  15& 


DETERMINATION  OF  SILICA. 

Procedure1. 

One  gram  of  100-mesh  soil  is  mixed  with  5 grams  of 
sodium  peroxide  in  an  iron  or  nickel  crucible.  If  the  soil  is 
low  in  organic  matter  .05  gram  of  starch  is  mixed  with  the 
soil  before  the  peroxide  is  added.  The  mixture  is  heated 
carefully,  the  flame  of  the  Bunsen  being  directed  upon  the 
charge  and  upon  the  side  of  the  crucible  until  the  action  starts. 
The  crucible  is  covered  until  the  reaction  is  over  and  then 
kept  at  a dull  red  heat  for  15  minutes.  The  contents  of  the 
crucible  are  transferred  to  a casserole  and  the  crucible  is 
washed  out  with  a little  hot  water.  The  casserole  is  covered 
with  a watch  glass,  and  75  cc.  HC1  (HC1,  sp.  gr.  1.2  diluted 
with  2 parts  of  water)  are  added  through  the  lip.  The  mix- 
ture is  evaporated  on  the  water  bath  with  occasional  stirring 
until  crumbling  starts  when  15  cc.  HC1  (1  part  HC1,  sp.  gr. 
1.2,  to  1 part  water)  are  added,  the  casserole  is  covered  with 
a watch  glass  and  digested  on  water  bath  for  10  to  15 
minutes.  Ten  cc.  of  water  are  added  and  the  silica  is  filtered 
with  suction  upon  an  11-cin.  ashless  paper  and  washed  with  a 
hot  solution  of  5 cc.  HC1,  sp.  gr.  1.2,  to  95  cc.  of  water.  The 
filtrate  is  evaporated  to  dryness  and  the  residue  dehydrated 
in  the  oven  at  110°  C.  for  2 hours.  The  residue  is  taken  up 
with  10  cc.  of  HC1  (1  part  HC1,  sp.  gr.  1.2,  to  1 part  water), 
covered  and  digested  on  water  bath  from  10  to  15  minutes. 
Forty  cc.  of  water  are  added  and  the  silica  is  filtered  imme- 
diately onto  9-cm.  ashless  paper  and  washed  with  cold  dilute 
HC1  (1  cc.  concentrated  HC1  to  99  cc.  water).  Paper  and 
silica  from  second  dehydration  are  placed  in  35-cc.  platinum 
crucible  and  the  paper  is  carefully  burned  ofif.  Paper  and 
silica  from  the  first  dehydration  are  added  and  the  silica  is 
ignited  to  constant  weight  over  Scimatco  burner.  Ten  cc.  of 
hydrofluoric  acid  and  a few  drops  of  sulphuric  acid  are  added 
to  crucible  and  the  silica  is  volatilized  by  evaporation  to  dry- 
ness. The  residue  is  ignited  and  weighed.  Loss  in  weight 
represents  Si02. 


1 Adapted  from  method  of  Lehner  and  Truog,  J.  Am.  Chem.  Soc.,  Vol.  38, 
pp.  1050-1063. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


21 


DETERMINATION  OF  CARBONATE  CARBON. 


Fig.  2. 

A — Gas  Washing  Bottle  (Containing  30%  KOH  solution). 

B — Wide  Mouth  Erlenmeyer  Flask  (200  cc.  capacity).  C — Extraction  Funnel. 

D — Absorption  Tube,  (Shown  in  detail  at  DJ.  E — Bunsen  Valve. 

F — Mercury  Suction  Gauge.  G — Suction  Pump. 

The  method  consists  in  the  decomposition  of  the  carbon- 
ates present  in  the  sample  by  means  of  1 : 10  HC1  in  vacuo. 
The  C02  is  expelled  by  means  of  a current  of  air  and  absorbed 
in  standard  NaOH  solution.  Barium  chloride  is  added  and 
the  excess  alkali  titrated  with  standard  HC1. 

The  absorption  tube,  which  was  designed  and  made  in 
this  laboratory,  is  very  efficient  and  has  an  advantage  over  a 
tube  containing  glass  beads  in  that  it  is  more  easily  washed 
free  from  alkali. 


Procedure. 

Ten  grams1  of  100-mesh  soil  are  placed  in  flask  B and  this 
connected  up  as  shown  in  Fig.  2.  Screw  clamp  (c)  is  closed. 
Absorption  tube  D is  charged  with  25  cc.  of  N/4  NaOH, 
measured  by  means  of  automatic  overflow  pipette,  together 
with  sufficient  C02-free  distilled  water  to  cover  the  floats 
and  a few  drops  of  phenolphthalein  indicator.  Forty  cc.  of 
1 : 10  HC1  are  run  in  from  funnel  C and  the  suction  turned  on 
very  gradually  until  it  equals  18  inches  of  mercury.  Screw 
clamp  (c)  is  then  opened  sufficiently  to  allow  a slow  current 
of  air  to  pass  through  the  apparatus  (30  to  40  bubbles  per 
minute  in  bottle  A).  The  air  current  is  continued  with  fre- 
quent agitation  of  flask  for  30  minutes,  when  the  suction  is 
shut  off  and  the  absorption  tube  disconnected  at  points  (a) 
and  (b)  and  removed  from  the  clamp.  The  contents  of  the 


1 On  soils  containing  over  0.25  % carbonate  carbon  a 5-gram  sample  is  used. 


22 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


absorption  tube  are  run  into  a 300-cc.  Erlenmeyer  flask  and 
the  tube  is  washed  three  times  with  40-cc.  portions  of  C02-free 
water,  run  into  tube  through  hole  in  stopper.  During  washing 
the  tube  is  revolved  sufficiently  to  wash  the  inner  surfaces  of 
the  absorbing  floats.  Five  cc.  of  neutral  10%  BaCl2  * 2H20 
solution  are  added  and  the  solution  titrated  with  N/10 
HC1,  using  phenolphthalein  indicator.  A blank  is  run  using 
the  same  amounts  of  reagents  and  water. 

Percent  of  Carbonate  Carbon  = .012  (Titration  of 
Blank  — Titration  of  Sample.) 

Duplicate  should  check  within  0.1  cc.  equivalent  to  .0012% 
on  a 10-gram  sample. 


DETERMINATION  OF  LIME  REQUIREMENT. 

The  method  in  use  in  this  laboratory  for  the  determina- 
tion of  the  lime  requirement  is  a combination  of  the  method 
of  Veitch1  with  that  of  Truog2.  The  principal  objection  to 
the  Veitch  determination  as  ordinarly  carried  out  is  the  num- 
ber of  determinations  that  must  be  run  before  the  correct  end 
point  is  obtained.  It  has  been  found  possible  to  eliminate 
one-half  or  more  of  these  determinations  by  first  running  a 
Truog  test  on  the  sample  and  comparing  the  test  paper  ob- 
tained with  a chart  composed  of  test  papers  from  a series  of 
soils  of  varying  lime  requirements  previously  determined  by 
the  Veitch  method. 


Reagents. 

Truog  Test  Solution. — 200  grams  of  neutral  calciurh 

chloride  are  dissolved  is  water,  25  grams  of  neutral  zinc  sul- 
phide (Merck's  B.  L.  Reagent)  added,  and  solution  is  diluted 
to  1 liter. 

Lead  Acetate  Paper. — Filter  paper  is  soaked  in  10%  lead 
acetate,  dried  in  oven  at  90°  C.  and  cut  into  half-inch  strips. 

Standard  Calcium  Hydrate  Solution. — N/50  Ca(OH)2 
solution  prepared  and  preserved  in  bottle  fitted  with  soda-lime 
guard  tube.  One  cc.  is  equivalent  to  200  pounds  CaCOs  re- 
quirement on  2,000,000  pounds  of  soil. 

Phenolphthalein  Indicator. — 5%  solution  of  phenolph- 
thalein in  95%  alcohol. 


1 Jour.  Am.  Chem.  Soc.,  Vol.  26,  p.  661. 

2 Bulletin  249,  Wisconsin  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 


August,  1916] 


METHODS  IN  SOIL  ANALYSIS 


23 


Procedure. 

To  10  grams  of  2-mm.  soil  in  300-cc.  Erlenmeyer  flask 
are  added  5 cc.  of  Truog.test  solution  and  95  cc.  of  water. 
Contents  of  flask  are  shaken  and  brought  to  boiling  and 
boiled  one  minute,  when  a dry  strip  of  lead  acetate  paper  is 
laid  on  the  mouth  of  flask  and  boiling  continued  for  two 
minutes.  The  darkening  produced  on  the  paper  is  then  com- 
pared with  the  test  paper  chart  and  the  number  of  cubic 
centimeters  of  N/50  Ca(OH)2  required  to  neutralize  a 10- 
gram  sample  estimated.  Five  10-gram  samples  of  2-mm.  soil 
are  weighed  and  treated  in  porcelain  evaporating  dishes  with 
such  amounts  of  N/50  Ca(OH)2  that  they  form  a series  from 
2 cc.  below  the  estimated  amount  to  2 cc.  above  this  amount, 
each  member  of  the  series  varying  by  1 cc.  from  the  next. 
These  are  immediately  evaporated  to  dryness,  taken  up  with 
water  and  transferred  to  a 300-cc.  flask.  The  volume  should 
be  about  150  cc.  After  shaking  frequently  for  one  hour,  the 
flasks  are  allowed  to  stand  over  night  and  50  cc.  of  the  super- 
natant liquid  of  each  is  transferred  to  a small  beaker.  Phen- 
olphthalein  is  added  and  the  contents  of  the  beaker  are  boiled 
to  one-third  their  original  volume.  By  noting  which  solutions 
in  the  series  turn  pink,  the  lime  requirement  is  estimated  to 
within  100  pounds  of  calcium  carbonate.  One  cc.  N/50 
Ca(OH)2  equals  200  pounds  calcium  carbonate  requirement 
on  2,000,000  pounds  of  soil. 


DETERMINATION  OF  NITRATE  NITROGEN. 

Reagents. 

Phenol-di-sulphonic  Acid. — 75  grams  of  pure  crystallized 
phenol  are  mixed  with  920  grams  (500  cc.)  of  concentrated 
H2S04  (sp.  gr.  1.84)  and  heated  for  six  hours  at  100°  C.  by 
placing  the  lightly  stoppered  flask  in  boiling  water.  Acid  so 
prepared  is  stored  in  brown  glass  bottle. 

Standard  Color  Solution. — A solution  containing  0.1  mg. 
N per  cc.  is  prepared  by  dissolving  0.7215  gram  dried  c.  p. 
KN03  in  water  and  diluting  to  one  liter.  One  hundred  cc. 
of  this  solution  are  removed  and  diluted  to  1 liter.  This  solu- 
tion contains  .01  mg.  N as  nitrate  per  cc.  The  color  standard 
is  prepared  by  evaporating  10  cc.  of  the  solution,  treating  with 
phenol-di-sulphonic  acid  and  proceeding  as  in  the  following 
method. 


24 


W.  VA.  AGR’Ii  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  159 


Procedure. 

One  hundred  grams  of  2-mm.  soil,  together  with  1 gram 
CuS04  and  exactly  250  cc.  distilled  nitrate-free  water  are 
placed  in  dry  soil-shaking  bottle.  This  is  stoppered  and  shak- 
en in  shaking  machine  for  30  minutes.  Bottle  is  removed  and 
allowed  to  stand  over  night,  when  75  cc.  of  the  clear  super- 
natant liquid  are  pipetted  into  a dry  flask.  Five-tenths  gram 
of  powdered  MgO  is  added  and  the  mixture  heated  to  60°  C. 
with  occasional  shaking.  The  flask  is  closed  with  a rubber 
stopper  and  allowed  to  cool  with  further  shaking.  The  solu- 
tion is  filtered  through  a dry  filter  into  a dry  flask,  the  first 
few  cc.  of  filtrate  being  discarded.  Ten  cc.  of  clear  filtrate 
are  evaporated  on  the  water  bath  in  porcelain  dish.  The  resi- 
due is  treated  with  2 cc.  of  phenol-di-sulphonic  acid  and 
mixed  thoroughly  by  scratching  with  a glass  rod.  After  10 
minutes  15  cc.  of  water  are  added,  followed  by  enough 
NH4OH  (1:1)  to  produce  a yellow  color,  and  the  solution  is 
transferred  to  a 250  cc.  flask  and  made  up  to  the  mark.  This 
is  shaken  and,  if  not  perfectly  clear,  the  solution  is  filtered. 
The  solution  is  compared  in  a Dubose  colorimeter  with  the 
standard  color  solution  and  the  result  calculated  as  follows : 

Mg.  of  N as  nitrate  per  100  grams  soil  = 0.05  X reading 
on  scale  of  standard  solution  (unknown  being  set  at 
50  on  scale  or  calculated  to  that  amount). 


DETERMINATION  OF  AMMONIUM  NITROGEN1. 

Solutions. 

Standard  acid  and  alkali  solutions  required  as  for  total 
nitrogen. 

Procedure. 

One  hundred  grams  of  2-mm.  soil  are  placed  together 
with  5 grams  of  magnesium  oxide,  300  cc.  of  water,  and  a few 
drops  of  hydrocarbon  oil  in  a liter  copper  distillation  flask. 
The  mixture  is  distilled  into  10  cc.  of  5/14  normal  H2S04  until 
the  distillate  measures  250  cc.  The  distillate  is  boiled  and 
titrated  after  cooling  with  N/14  NaOH,  using  alizarin  red 
indicator.  One  cc.  N/14  NaOH  = 1 milligram  of  nitrogen. 


1 This  method  is  not  recommended  for  absolute  amounts  of  ammonia  but  has 
been  found  very  satisfactory  for  determining  relative  amounts. 


Bulletin  160 


August,  1916 


Collect?  of  A-ncu:  .-  . -c 
Uni  merrily  cf  lib 

Wt£t  Virginia  ®ntbersittp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN 


DEPARTMENT  OF  SOILS 


THE  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS 
OF  FERTILIZERS 


BY 

Firman  E.  Bear  and  Robert  M.  Salter 


Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  the  West  Virginia 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 


FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D. 


President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D 

BERT  H HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr 

I.  S COOK,  Jr.,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S 

FIRMAN  E BEAR.  M.Sc.... 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

|L  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc... 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Sc 

GEORGE  W.  BURKE,  B.S 

ROBERT  M.  SALTER,  M.Sc 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S.  Agr. 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

* A.  J DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

R H.  TUCKWILLER  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A J.  SWIFT,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A.  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr 

C E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

- - Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

Plant  Pathologist 

- Poultryman 

Consulting  Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Animal  Industry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 

* in  co-operation  with  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 


CONCLUSIONS. 


These  conclusions  are  summarized  from  analyses 
of  fertilizer  plots  at  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station  which  have  been  under  experi- 
ment for  the  last  fifteen  years. 

1.  Nitrogen  fixation  from  the  air  averaging  20 
pounds  per  acre  per  year  has  taken  place  on  the  plot 
receiving  acid  phosphate.  On  the.  plot  on  which  acid 
phosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash  have  been  applied, 
the  fixation  of  nitrogen  amounted  to  78  pounds  per 
acre  per  year. 

2.  The  phosphorus  applied  to  the  soil  in  excess  of 
the  needs  of  the  crops  was  not  lost  in  the  drainage 
water  but  was  fixed  in  the  surface  6^3  inches  of  soil. 

3.  Organic  matter  has  been  maintained  and  in- 
creased by  the  use  of  fertilizers  without  plowing  under 
green  manuring  crops  or  crop  residues  other  than  the 
stubble  left  behind  after  the  crops  were  harvested. 

4.  The  use  of  quicklime  in  excess  of  the  needs  of 
the  soil  has  caused  a loss  of  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and 
organic  matter  from  the  surface  soil  considerably 
larger  than  the  increased  yields  produced  would 
justify. 

. 5.  The  use  of  manure  or  fertilizers  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  sulphate  of  potash)  has  had  a tendency  to 
decrease  the  acidity  of  the  soil. 


18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 


° O ° o ° o ° o ° 4* 

° ° o5?fio  o o 

.o.o.o  o.o. 

z8  o o o o o °37 

H ° o ° o ° O ° O ° O* 

O ® o ° of£f?o  ° o ° o 

_ o o o o o 

2sP  o000o0o°o%® 

3*o  l o l O ° o ° o ° o42 
o O o o 

° o ° o °3cP°  o ° o ° 
31°  o°o0o0o°o  %g 

50°  n O ® O ° O ° O ° O3' 

o o o o 

° o ° o °^°  o ° o ° 

2.8  O ° o ° o ° o ° o ^5 

3,0  O O o ° l O n o'6 

° o ° o o3£°  o ° o ° 
2%  o0o0o°o°o  °20 

2o  « o o o l O ° o 

o o o2°9o  o o 

o o o o 

o o o o o o 

35  0 0 0 0 0 30 

° 0 ° o ° o ° o ° o/7 

° O ° o °2o'  ° « ° o 0 

o o o o o 

28  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °20 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O25 
0 0 0 c o3^°  0 0 0 ° 

_ Q 0 0 OOO  _ 

27  0 Ovo  O O S’* 

27  0.0.0. 0.0  57 
o o o o o o 

0 0 ' 0 0 0 

0 ^ 0 A 03o/0  A 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 

X O O O O O- 

3^  0 0 0 u 0 u 0 

£*>.  0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 25 

0.0.0.  0.0.0 

0 2 0 0 0,o6°  0 0 0 0 
_.o  O O O O O 

51  O O 0 0 02/ 

/J  O . O O O 0 /9 

^o'’oQ-.oc'o°o0 
c c c 0 o2o‘  0 C 0 0 0 

i9c  c 0 c 0 c 0 c 0 0 °i9 

2/o  c c 1 c ; 0 l 0 ° o/3 

0 1 0 0 °2c2°  0 0 0 0 

0 0 c c 0 0 

pe  000  0 0 21 

2%  ° 0 ? 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° Z2 
' ' 03&  0 S ° 0 0 

0.0.  0.0.0  0 , 

27  0 0 0 0 O 24- 

36.  0 0 0 0 0 28 

0.0.  0.0.  0.0 
0 O O—  0 0 

0.0.  02.60  .0.0 
.0  0 0.0  0 

OOOOOO 
SO  0 O O O O 25 

35.  0.0.  0.0.0  2 5 
t>0°0000000° 

0 0 0 0 OJo5°  0 0 0 0 
40°  0 ° 0 ° O 0 0 ° O °2S 

34  0.00. 0.021 
0.  0.0.0.  0.0 

0.0°  0 3°  9°  ° 0 ^ 0 
.0.0.  .0.0. 

41  0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 0 O 5ri 

0 0 ° 0 ° 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 °#°  0 0 0 0 
4#  O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O %s 

4; 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 ® 0 ® 

OOOOO 
00000^0000° 
^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^1 

0°0°0°0°0°0 
OOOOO 
0.0.  0.0.  0.0 
OOOOO 
0.0.  0.0.  0.0 
OOOOO 

No  Fertilizer. 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate, 
Sulphate  of  Potash,  Lime. 

Manure  and  Lime. 

No  Fertilizer. 

Lime. 

Ash  of  Manure  and  Nitrate  of  Soda. 
No  Fertilizer. 

Manure. 

Nitrate  of  Soda,  Acid  Phosphate, 
and  Sulphate  of  Potash. 

No  Fertilizer. 

Acid  Phosphate  and  Sulphate  of 
Potash. 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Sulphate  of 
Potash. 

No  Fertilizer. 

Nitrate  of  Soda  and  Acid  Phos- 
phate. 

Sulphate  of  Potash. 

No  Fertilizer. 

Acid  Phosphate. 

Nitrate  of  Soda. 

No  Fertilizer. 


aJ 


DIAGRAM  I. — Fertility  Plots,  (one-tenth  acre  each).  This  diagram  shows  the  points  at  which  samples  were  chosen  for 
composite  sample  of  the  soil  of  each  plot  and  also  the  depth  of  the  underlying  rock  at  five  points. 


The  Residual  Effects  of  Fertilizers1 

By  FIRMAN  E.  BEAR  and  ROBERT  M.  SALTER. 


INTRODUCTION. 

In  a previous  publication* *  of  the  West  Virginia  Agri- 
cultural Experiment  Station  may  be  found  a summary  of  the 
results  obtained  by  the  experimental  use  of  fertilizers  on  the 
Experiment  Station  farm.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this  bulletin 
to  present  for  consideration  the  effects  on  the  soil  of  these 
fertilizer  treatments  and  of  the  crops  produced  as  a result  of 
the  use  of  the  fertilizers,  in  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to 
measure  these  effects  by  laboratory  methods. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS. 

During  the  summer  of  1900  a series  of  19  tenth-acre  plots 
was  set  aside  at  the  Experiment  Station  farm  for  work  with 
fertilizers.  Each  plot  was  made  two  rods  wide  and  eight  rods 
long.  A three-foot  space  was  left  between  plots.  These  plots 
were  numbered  serially  from  18  to  36.  Every  third  plot  was 
left  unfertilized.  Accordingly,  plots  18,  21,  24,  27,  30,  33,  and 
36  are  check  plots.  Three  of  these  check  plots,  18,  24,  and 
36,  are  no  longer  satisfactory  checks.  The  tile  drain  passing 
near  plot  18  became  stopped  up  and  the  yields  on  one  end  of 
the  plot  were  somewhat  abnormal.  Plot  24  accidentally  re- 
ceived an  application  of  manure  intended  for  plot  25.  The  ma- 
nure was  raked  off  with  a hand  rake  a few  days  later  but  the 
leachings  from  the  manure  materially  increased  the  productive 
power  of  the  soil.  Plot  36  was  discarded  because  of  its  ten- 
dency to  wash.  Plots  18  and  36  have  been  cropped  each  year 
and  have  never  received  any  fertilizer.  Their  present  produc- 
tivity corresponds  rather  closely  to  that  of  plots  21  and  33  so 
that  the  present  condition  of  these  plots  is  practically  the  same 
as  though  they  had  been  checks,  although  complete  records  of 
their  yields  are  not  available. 


fCredit  is  due  M.  F.  Morgan  and  E.  B.  Wells  for  assistance  in  securing 
samples  and  in  doing  part  of  the  analytical  work. 

*Bear,  Firman  E.,  Experiments  with  Fertilizers,  West  Virginia  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  Bulletin  155,  1915. 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


THE  SOIL. 

The  United  States  Bureau  of  Soils  has  mapped  the  soil 
on  the  Experiment  Station  farm  as  Dekalb  silt  loam.  It  is  a 
residual  soil  formed  by  the  disintegration  of  grayish  shales 
and  sandstones  overlying  the  Pittsburgh  vein  of  coal.  The 
depth  of  the  underlying  rock  varies  from  18  to  56  inches. 
The  diagram  on  page  4 shows  the  depths  of  the  rock  at  five 
points  in  each  plot.  The  variation  in  the  depths  of  the  rock 
may  have  had  some  influence  on  the  productivity  of  the  plots 
under  various  treatments  although  we  have  no  evidence  to 
this  effect. 

The  soil  is  of  a grayish  yellow  color  with  a yellowish 
subsoil.  The  original  timber  was  largely  oak  and  chestnut. 
At  the  time  the  experiments  were  begun  the  productivity  of 
the  soil  was  very  low.  The  vegetation  consisted  principally 
of  red  top,  yarrow,  poverty  grass,  and  sorrel  together  with 
some  broomsedge. 


THE  CROPS  GROWN. 

No  definite  rotation  of  crops  has  been  followed.  Rye  was 
grown  in  1900  and  1907;  wheat  in  1901  and  1914;  clover  in 
1902,  1909,  and  1915;  corn  in  1903,  1905,  and  1912;  cowpeas 
in  1904;  potatoes  in  1906;  timothy  in  1909,  1910,  and  1911; 
oats  in  1913.  A complete  record  of  the  crop  yields  calculated 
to  the  acre  basis  will  be  found  on  pages  7 and  8. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


l-  H CQ 

J5  Pi  _ 


OOOOOOOOOOOO  _ 

CO  ZD  ZD  CO  OO  OO  Cq  CO  05  tO  CD  lO  L"*  _ „ » . 

OMMM'NM'tlfl  CO  00CMCMCMC0CMO5CM 
CO  tC  4—  tH  CO  1— I 


OO  t*  o 


o o o 

<00  CO  ^ 

1-t  O T-H 


00 

H CO 

zo  o u 

O H <D 

oo  <;  o 
H eh  3 
O H 
Ph 


ZD  O CO  O tH  O CO 

o oo  lo  »o  CO  CO  o 

CO  CM  t-H  CM  CM  t—i  t— 


o o o o o 

CO  CO  O O ID 

OC  CO  ^ 00  CO 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


»0^®?00000000000000000 
OKiS  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
CIO""  t-C—CMOCCOT— IGOOiOt— ' ® 05  05  OO  C-  t-H  CM 
HU  t-TfT-HOiiiOCO'^OOCOCOlOOOOrHOO-^O 
« CO  CO  t-H  t-H  t-H  CO  CO  t-H  t-H  t-H  t-H  t-H  t-H  t-H  t-H 


00 

o i ^ 

2 ^ as 


o O o o o o 

to  lO  lO  o U0  lO 

OO  t—  CO  CO  tH*  CO 

ZD  ZD  T-I  CO  T-H 


o o 

CO  CO 
ZD  CO 


O O O o 


o o o o o 

O to  to  to  to  o 

T-H  i-<  05  ^ ZD  to 

CO  to  H CO  CO  CO 


ggl 

05  O 

-Og 

s 

u 

o 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

OOOOOlOOOuOOOOOloOtOO 

OO'^OOCOOOOtOO'^lCOCOOOt^COC^CO 

<X>05COCOIOCO«OC'-CO«©COCOC-COCOU3CO 


o o 

O CO 

o <x> 

CO  t-H 


OOOOOOOOOOOO 

c~cocooooocooococ~co 

t-<M«ocHinooTt<oaiflcj 

t— I tO  U®  t-H  U®  t— I t— I U®  CM  t-H  -Tt*  i-H 


o > 

2 O' 

1-1  ij  ’ 

o 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OLOlOOOOtOtOtOOOtO  OOOOO 
t-  00  ® tO  05  t— IU®CM00U®OC005U®CM'*1® 
®OONTHI>NCStT-NU5NN['NCqU5(N 


T-t  <U2 
O B 
03 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

OOOOJC^COOOlOOOtOCdtOUSt-OT-Ht^ 

t-WHTl<MOOU3®l>MOO®«'OCl®t- 

COTjiHTHC5HT^CC'HCOHT-HC5HHCqi-H 


*>  a to  o o o o 

— ZD  Tf  Hf  ^H  00 

J»  ZD  00  t-H  o 00 


OOOOOOOOOO 
NiflwiaxiaificjH® 
05  t—  T—i  lO  O O tO  O t-H  CO 


Os® 

o >, 


CO  Cl 


CO  to 


O t'-  C—  CO  05  O O 

C—  00  t-H  OC  CD  ZD 

O to  co  to  t—  to  to 

CM  CO  CT  CM  CO  CM 


O CO  CO  t— 
O t-H  ZD  05 
t-H  05  TH  CQ 
t-H  ,-h  ®q  ,-H 


o o 

OO  'f 
05  CO 


00  O 

c-  o 

ZD  ZD 
cq  cm 


O Tt< 
ZD  T—I 
CO  05 


Pu 

- 

O 

cd 

X 

X 

1 

w 

« 

05 

o 

rJl 

w 

<v 

& 

o 

a> 

a 

OJ 

Oh 

o 

a> 

* 

.£3 

:d 

xi 

.d 

-C3 

£ 

§ 

° 

£ 

O 

Ph“ 

£ 

O 

£ 

X 

o 

Ph 

z 

O 

O 

0 

CM 

CO 

Tf 

LO 

ZD 

c— 

of) 

05 

o 

CM 

co 

to 

cl 

t-H 

CM 

cq 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

cq 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

*Plots  were  sown  to  timothy  and  clover  but  on  account  of  unfavorable  weather  conditions  gave  very  poor  crop  in  1908.  Plots 
were  mowed  and  hay  was  left  on  the  ground, 
t Calculated  yields. 

N.  K,  and  P are  symbols  for  nitrogen,  potassium,  and  phosphorus  respectively.  CaO  is  the  symbol  for  burned  lime.  M indicates 

manure. 


TABLE  I (continued). — Pounds  of  Produce  per  Acre. 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


9 LOOOLOOLOOOOLOLOOOlOLOlOLO 

73  ^ OOOrHl'- 

cr>TfXD<X>CM®S005r-105CM-<*i05LO>OOi*iT-| 
OX  OCM00'X>03C005t-CM<X;CM05L0i-|C0C0i-H 

P_i  i—l  tH  tH  tH 


cs 

kO  w 
iH  !>  cS 


ooooooooooooooooo 
oooioocoLOiocoitfcrJcooscocococD 
OOT(iHl''H«OCONNTfPONlO(M<NOn 
lO  o (M  N lO  M i— I CM  i— | 


3»” 

05  K 

^£.2 

d 

o 


ooooooooooooooooo 

00  0-lH^(Or-M«000  0JOC0inNNffi(0 
«Tl<t>NOOT|HTt<t'lOOOI>Tt<OOI>Clt- 
LO  H M M CO  « CM  <M 

* 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
CM00L0  00  05  05  00  O5t-C0C©t-O00C0«CTh 
OOcOW^HMlftCONlflCOlfiCOMlOM 


So 


1000000000000000®® 
CMOOOLOt-CMOOOCOCMi— 'i— it-LOLOt— 
®®CO®i-|Tfit-00"'*'i-l00t-''tf<LOlOCM'^< 
CM  ® i—l  OO  iH  i—(  1-1  i— i 


lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
t-LOCMLOCOGO'=f®LOCM000505eO®LOCO 
OO  CM  CM  CM  tC  CM  O OO  CM  ® CO  CM  t—  CO  CO  C'*  CO 


03 

> 

O 

CM  55  *5 
IH  PS  m 
05  O 

rH  O S3 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOCMOOIOOCMOOOO 
i— ICOOOO'^'^'^fOOCOOCMTf 
^ifNCO^H^^WTjifqHTflN 


o o o 

CM  LO  OO 
<55  O CO 
i — 1 CM  H 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 
COrHOC-LOCOOOLOt-LOOOOCO®®® 
COOlOTflOMOOOOlflHOlSOMOJH^ 
htHCOCMi— lrt<CMi— ICMi— I 


O Tf  LO  i—l  CM  CO  H 


W.  ooooooooooooooooo 

^£:?<55Tt<COOC50Tli<55lOOO<55COCMlOC'-05-<*i 
O CM  i—l  t— I 00  05  O O 00  CM  CO 
r:gi-H<x>Oi-iT-i  <x>o  cm  cm 


— K^O.  OLOOOOOOLOLOOLOOlOOOLO 
3^S‘OOOrt<CMOOOOt-C-OOC-OOOOTHOO 
O tH  CO  CM  t— I H O t>*  CM  00  CO  CO  CM  CM  00 

05  O t— I t-H  i— I i—1  05  OO  i—l  CO  CO  tH  t—  tH  i— I CO  CM 


^ o £ 
2 gffi 


t S3 

05  W * >, 

Ha*r 

H 


O O LO  LO  O LO 

O O LO  CO  05  CO 

O 00  C~  LO  Tin 

LO  O 


OOLOOLOLOOOLOLO 

..  OOOTt<CMOOCOO-^i 
LO  OO  t—  LO  O i-H  t—  LO  Tt<  CO  OO 
C-  -*f  i—l  CM  Tt< 


O 

U o 

0> 

^ .d 

§ o 


X\  X 
® o 
as  a> 

S’ 

S O 


W « W W 


o 
a> 
xt 

O Ph  Z 


o 05  O i—l  CM  CO  to  CO  f*  OO  05  O H CM  CO  ^ LO 
fL,  rICMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


Abnormal  yields  due. to  an  accidental  application  of  manure  which  was  subsequently  removed  with  a hand  rake. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


& 


FERTILIZER  TREATMENTS. 

Much  heavier  applications  of  fertilizers  have  been  made 
during  the  fifteen  years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  beginning 
of  the  experiment  than  would  be  used  in  actual  practice. 
This  was  done  in  order  to  magnify  the  effect  and  to  shorten 
the  period  of  time  necessary  to  produce  a measurable  effect  on 
the  soil.  The  following  amounts  of  fertilizers  have  been  ap- 
plied annually  to  the  plots  with  the  exceptions  noted : 

Plots  18,  21,  24,  27,  30,  33,  and  36.  No  fertilizer. 

Plot  19.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate ; 40  pounds  acid  phos- 
phate; 15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906); 
100  pounds  lime  in  1900  ; 150  pounds  lime  in  1906;  and  200 
pounds  lime  in  1912. 

Plot  20.  Two  tons  stable  manure;  100  pounds  lime  in 
1900;  150  pounds  lime  in  1906;  and  200  pounds  lime  in  1912. 

Plot  22.  100  pounds  lime  in  1900  and  in  1903 ; 150  pounds 
in  1906;  and  200  pounds  in  1912. 

Plot  23.  Ash  from  two  tons  of  stable  manure,  together 
with  an  amount  of  nitrogen  in  the  form  of  sodium  nitrate 
equivalent  to  the  nitrogen  originally  present  in  the  stable 
manure.  Applications  made  in  1900  and  in  1901.  Since  then 
no  further  applications  have  been  made  until  1912  when  it 
received  40  pounds  of  a 4-16-4  fertilizer. 

Plot  25.  Two  tons  stable  manure  applied  annually  except 
in  1903. 

Plot  26.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate ; 40  pounds  acid  phos- 
phate; 15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906). 

Plot  28.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate;  15  pounds  potassium 
sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906). 

Plot  29.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate;  15  pounds  potassium 
sulphate  (20  pounds  in  1906). 

Plot  31.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate;  40  pounds  sodium 

nitrate. 

Plot  32.  15  pounds  potassium  sulphate  (20  pounds  in 

1906). 

Plot  34.  40  pounds  acid  phosphate. 

Plot  35.  40  pounds  sodium  nitrate. 


10 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


In  1902,  1907,  1908,  1914,  and  1915  no  fertilizer  was  ap- 
plied on  any  of  the  plots.  In  1913  only  one-half  of  the  original 
application  of  fertilizer  was  given. 

TABLE  II. — Total  Amounts  of  Fertilizers  Applied  per  Acre 
from  1900  to  1915  Inclusive. 

Nitrate  of  Acid  Phos-  Sulphate  of 

Soda,  Pounds  phate,  Pounds  Potash,  Pounds  Lime, Pounds  Manure,  Tons 


Plot  per  Acre  per  Acre  per  Acre  per  Acre  per  Acre 

19  4200  4200  1625  4500 

20  4500  210 

21  

22  5500 

23  300  Ash  of  40  tons  of  manure  until  1912  

24  

25  190 

26  4200  4200  1625  

27  

28  4200  1625  

29  4200  1625  

30  

31  4200  4200  

32  1625  

33  

34  4200  

35  4200  


THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  FERTILIZERS 
ON  THE  CROPS. 

'The  record  of  the  crop  yields  shows  some  very  interesting 
effects.  The  total  produce  per  acre  .has  varied  from  36,615 
pounds  on  the  plot  receiving  burned  lime  to  152,400  pounds 
on  the  plot  receiving  manure  and  lime.  We  are  particularly 
interested  in  the  yields  in  calculating  the  elements  of  plant 
food  which  have  been  removed  from  the  soil  by  the  crops 
grown.  Unfortunately  no  analyses  have  been  made  of  the 
crops  from  the  various  plots.  We  are  compelled,  therefore, 
to  base  our  calculations  on  average  analyses  of  these  crops. 
We  have  chosen  the  analyses  as  given  by  Hopkins*  with  a 
few  exceptions  in  which  analyses  given  by  Henry  and  Morri- 
son'- were  more  nearly  comparable. 


*Soil  Fertility  and  Permanent  Agriculture 
tFeeds  and  Feeding. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


11 


TABLE  III. — Pounds  of  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and 
potassium  removed  by  crops  from  fertility  plots 
since  1900,  calculated  on  the  acre  basis. 


Plot 

Treatment 

N 

P 

K 

19 

N,  P,  K,  CaO 

1146 

177 

964 

20 

M,  CaO  

1382 

213 

1213 

21 

Check  

313 

55 

279 

22 

CaO  

312 

57 

235 

23 

M (ash),  N 

687 

109 

538 

24 

Check  

378 

60 

306 

25 

M 

1278 

195 

1098 

26 

N,  P,  K 

1082 

171 

916 

27 

Check  

351 

59 

304 

28 

P,  K 

705 

115 

587 

29 

N,  K 

417 

73 

385 

30 

Check  

341 

57 

290 

31 

N,  P 

945 

148 

799 

32 

K 

349 

60 

296 

33 

Check  

321 

55 

271 

34 

P 

591 

95 

490 

35 

N 

356 

61 

312 

TABLE  IV. — Pounds  of 

nitrogen, 

phosphorus, 

and 

potassium,  calculated  from  check  plots,  which  would 
have  been  removed  per  acre  in  crops  if  no  fertilizer 
had  been  applied. 


Plot 

N 

P 

K 

19 

313 

55 

279 

20 

313 

55 

279 

21 

313 

55 

279 

22 

319 

56 

283 

23 

326 

.56 

287 

24 

332 

57 

292 

25 

338 

58 

296 

26 

345 

58 

300 

27 

351 

59 

304 

28 

347 

58 

299 

29 

343 

57 

295 

30 

341 

57 

290 

31 

334 

56 

284 

32 

328 

55 

277 

33 

321 

55 

271 

34 

321 

55 

271 

35 

321 

55 

271 

Table  V gives  the  amounts  of  nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and 
potassium  removed  from  the  soil  of  each  plot  by  the  increased 
crops  according  to  these  analyses,  and  also  the  number  of 
pounds  of  these  elements  supplied  in  the  fertilizers  used.  The 
columns  headed  “Gain  or  Loss”  represent  the  relative  condi- 
tions- of  the  various  plots  as  they  would  be  if  there  had  been 
no  losses  in  the  drainage  water  or  no  gains  from  the  air. 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


[Bulletin  160 


i + 


O)  U5  lO  (O  <35  _| 
W OO  OO  H U H 5 
CO  lo  Ifl  CD  (M 

+++ I + I | 


'O  <v 

I Cfo 
_ 'a 

-O  a> 

<D  M 

> a co 
o a>  o- 

flt-O 


50 


U5 

OO  CO 
CO  05 


W lfl  U5 
c~  t-  t> 
co  CO  CD 


t— I 05  CO  00  ® tO 
to  O H OO  05  H 
N OO  CO  N LO 


05  05 

i— 1 tH 
05 


!g  £ 
^ + 


o CO  CO  1—1 

OO  CO  TH  o 
H N N 

+ + I + I 


to  CO  CO 
to 

05 


^ *■ 


a;  m 


> 
o 

a 

3S.o 


co  co  : co 

C-  C-  05  05  : 05 

05  05  : <M 


c<3  co 

® a w oo 
h O <M  to 


O 

aS  J 

CJ  ^ 

o 


LO  OO  OO  1— I 
CO  to  05  CO 
CO 


rH  O t- 
05  t-  CO 
05  CO 


I I ++  I I + 


2 a S 


3 


05 

05 

: 05  05  • 

: 05 

t-  o- 

: o*  o*  t- 

: t-  t— 

: t> 

CO 

: co 

: co  co  : 

: co 

t— I O t>”  OO  ^ rH  i— ( O lO 

CD  CO  ID  t*  r- ! C5  t-  CC 

CO  05  C""*  CO  CO  05 


o 

cti 

a u 

a>  w 

a . 

« ^ o 

2 . a 

E-i  CL,  O 


o d 


pC  g ^ d, 


o 05  O 05  CO  LO  CO  00  05  H 05  ^ lO 
^ 1-I05  05  O5O5O5O5O5C0C0C0C0 


Calculated  from  Tables  III  and  IV. 


13 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 

l 

ANALYTICAL  DATA. 

During  the  spring  of  1915  the  plots  were  sampled  by  the 
use  of  a soil  auger.  Thirty-eight  borings  each  to  a depth  of 
inches  were  taken  for  a composite  sample  of  soil  on  each 
plot.  These  borings  were  distributed  over  the  plots  as  shown 
in  the  diagram  on  page  4.  The  samples  were  air  dried  and 
put  through  a 2-mm.  sieve  to  remove  stones  and  undecom- 
posed pieces  of  organic  matter.  After  thorough  mixing  a suffi- 
cient amount  of  this  composite  sample  was  chosen  for  analy- 
tical purposes  and  pulverized  to  pass  a sieve  with  100  meshes 
to  the  inch.  Samples  of  the  subsoil  from  6^3  to  20  inches  were 
also  taken  and  prepared  for  analysis. 

It  was  thought  desirable  to  determine  the  probable  error 
in  sampling  a plot.  Accordingly  six  composite  samples  of  38 
borings  each  were  chosen  from  plot  26  and  prepared  for 
analysis.  A record  of  the  total  carbon,  nitrogen,  and  phos- 
phorus as  found  in  these  six  samples  is  given  below: 


TABLE  VI. — Percentages  of  carbon,  nitrogen,  and  phosphorus  in  a 
soil  as  determined  by  duplicate  analyses  of  six  composite  samples 
from  the  same  plot. 


Total  Carbon 

Total  Nitrogen 

Total  Phosphorus 

Sample 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Analysis 

Analysis 

A 

B 

A 

B 

A 

B 

1 

1.53 

1.51 

.130 

.129 

.045 

.045 

2 

1.55 

1.56 

.138 

.138 

.047 

.046 

3 

1.51 

1.49 

.134 

.133 

.046 

.046 

4 

1.52 

1.54 

.133 

.133 

.045 

.045 

5 

1.64 

1.64 

.148 

.147 

.048 

.049 

6 

1.52 

1.52 

.135 

.135 

.045 

.046 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  table  that  there  is  a very  close 
agreement  among  five  of  the  six  samples.  No  explanation  is 
available  for  the  differences  to  be  noticed  in  sample  5.  How- 
ever, these  differences  necessitate  a more  careful  study  of  the 
results  to  follow  in  order  to  be  sure  that  the  conclusions 
drawn  are  correct. 


TABLE  VII. — Analyses  of  Composite  Samples  of  Surface  Soil  from  Fertility  Plots. 

Percent  of  Air  Dry  Soil 


14 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


gm 


wg 


os 


o o 
o o 

CO  CO 


co  cc  oo 


o o 
o o 

<N  CO 

in  in 


coo 
o o o 

co  ^ ^ 

CO  CO  CO 


OSOCONMlMtCCDC'l'CC-i'TttTj.TM^mT-iOnHCJlOlOHMHnCDCDt-t'HH^^NN 
o iHN<N0aCDC0OO0505OOOOC000iniOrHOC0CClC0C0C0C0'^C0T)<TfC0ir0-^'tl^'^(N04 

ri  ri  H H H r l”HOOHr!  riHHriHHHHHr Ir I H H H rH  H ri  H r- 1 1— I rH I H rl  H n H 


T-iC5ooooaot-co^int~t'-cococ-t-050''#inc5C5oococ50C50ioin 
-•r  mujvi;v4^vij^LJujujinininininincococDcoiniot-t-cocoincococoioiococoincoTt*Tt,iom 

M qqoqqqoqooqooooqooooqqoocooqooqoocooco 


■'flOCOCOCOCO^i’Trr-i’ 

inincocococDininin 


doddddddddd 


jdddddddddddddddo 


„ t- oo  co  t- in  in  <n  t-i  oo 
*,  05  05  O O CO  00  05  05  00 
<!  oohhhhOoo 
o o d o’  d o d o 


ooot>-t-(NiN(N(Neoeoxoo^TtHininco'^ooincDinininincocoTjHrt< 
OC0050500CDCDCOC00105HHHHHHINC<IHHHHHHHHoO 
5 0.0 

5do’ddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 


oot't'MMOoscocoMcoininHHininoHccicoNMinin'^i'cocot-i'^'iHHHNM 

OOOOCOOOinintO(N(N(MOOCOOOCOCDCO-Th'^COOO'^l'^COCOCOCO-^'^OOOOCOCO-^'^OOCOcOCO 

oqooooooqooooooooooooqoooooooooooooooo 
o o o'  o o d o o"  d o’  o o d d o d o d d o d o o o o'  o'  o o o o o o d d o o o o’ 


!(MMCONNO(»ilMinoONHinOini'(NOHOCOCDi-iOO(NHtD050mcOOt- 

;<x>cococococo^'tfininmcot~t~i>cococoC'-i>cococoi'-incot-CDcot>coco[>co 

:oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo- 


050500(MiHT-((N(NCOCOOO^in050000000505t-0500rHOO(N00  05  0 
iHTH(M(M(MCviqiMiMOJCNllM(MIMTH(MCv|(MOlOiqnrHTH7HC\l(M(M_Cvl(M<NCvlrHC\| 

dodo  o’ dodo  dodo  o'o’dd  odd  o’ dddddddddddod 


■OOOOOOOOCO' 


CO^HinrHiHCO(MCOCOr-lr-iMOOin^COTHC^<NCOCOCOOO 

HHHHriHHHHrJrlrlHHHHHnHHrlrJH 

o*  o’  o o o’  o’  o o o o o o’  d o o o o o o o'  o'  o o 


oooocooooo 


ooooooooooooooooooooo 


NinHOO05  05t-00int~t~(Nr-ICCt~' 

Tji  rjH  TjJ  TjJ  Tji  Tf’  •+’  T}H  rt?  -^T  rji  rf  ■ 


i-+T)Hrt<Tt'Tf<^^rj<T^iolfnoininin 


05^NNCDOOt'M’#(NH000050JCOi 

i-  t-  t- 1-  t>  q l—  t-  i-  t-  t-  i"  i"  q co  i - t-  i 
o d o’  o’  o d d o’  o o o’  o o’o  o’  o’  o'  o < 


'OOr-lt>t-00  00M(N(N(N00  00  0005 
t-  t"  CO  CD  CO  CD  C-  t-  C~  C-  C-  t-- 

'do dddddddddddod 


o o oo 


O 

rt  w. 

u ■g 

05 

tJ-  XI 

S O 


INNNNONNIMr-' 


IDJ(N(N(N<N(NIM(N(N(NIN(N 


O Z o 


05 

. ja 

Pk  £ o 


* Surface  soil  to  6%  inches. 
fSubsoil,  6%  to  20  inches. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


15 


INTERPRETATION  OF  ANALYSES. 

Analyses  of  Check  Plots. 

The  analyses  of  the  check  plots  indicate  that  the  fertility 
increases  as  we  proceed  from  plot  21  to  plot  33,  and  then  de- 
creases from  33  to  36.  Plot  18  shows  a slightly  higher  con- 
tent of  nitrogen  and  carbon  than  plot  21.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  plot  24  is  no  longer  a check,  having  accidentally 
received  an  application  of  manure.  Any  calculations  as  to  the 
effect  of  fertilizers  applied  on  the  present  composition  of  the 
soil  must  take  into  consideration  this  gradual  increase  in  the 
plant  food  content  of  these  soils  from  one  end  of  the  series  to 
the  other.  By  dividing  the  differences  in  the  analyses  of  the 
check  plots  by  the  number  of  plots  between  the  checks  we 
are  able  to  calculate  what  the  plant  food  content  of  each  of 
the  plots  would  have  been  at  the  present  time  if  it  had  re- 
ceived no  fertilizer.  Table  VIII  shows  the  results  of  this 
calculation  on  the  basis  of  pounds  of  elements  per  2,000,000 
pounds  of  surface  soil  and  4,000,000  pounds  of  subsoil. 


TABLE 

VIII.- 

-Present 

Analyses  of 

Plots  as  Calculated  from  Check 

Plots 

Had  no  Fertilizer  or  Manure 

Been  Applied. 

( Pounds 

per  Acre 

of  2,000,000 

Pounds  of 

Surface  Soil 

or  4,000,000  Pounds  of 

Subsoil.) 

Plot 

No. 

Nitrogen 
A*  By 

Phosphorus 

Carbon 

CaCCL,  Requiremert 
A*  Lbs.  Bt  Lbs. 

18 

1960 

2180 

600 

23,900 

2800 

6800 

19 

1917 

2174 

597 

23,000 

2800 

3600 

20 

1873 

2166 

593 

22,100 

2800 

2800 

21 

1830 

2160 

590 

21,200 

2800 

5600 

22 

1852 

2180 

593 

21,317 

2967 

3600 

23 

1873 

2200 

597 

21,433 

3133 

6000 

24 

1895 

2220 

600 

21,550 

3300 

3600 

25 

1917 

2240 

603 

21,667 

3467 

3200 

26 

1938 

2260 

607 

21,783 

3633 

4400 

27 

1960 

2280 

610 

21,900 

3800 

5200 

28 

2063 

2314 

640 

23,367 

3800 

5200 

29 

2166 

2346 

670 

24,833 

3800 

5200 

30 

2270 

2380 

700 

26,300 

3800 

5600 

31 

2280 

2426 

713 

26,667 

3733 

5200 

32 

2290 

2474 

727 

27,033 

3667 

5600 

33 

2300 

2520 

740 

27,400 

3600 

5200 

34 

2227 

2420 

707 

26,400 

3600 

5600 

35 

2153 

2320 

673 

25,400 

3600 

5600 

36 

2080 

2220 

640 

24,400 

* Surface  soil  to  6%  inches, 
t Subsoil,  6%  to  20  inches. 


16 


W.VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


The  Nitrogen  Balance. 

Every  plot  which  has  received  an  application  of  acid 
phosphate  shows  a higher  content  of  nitrogen  than  it  should, 
according  to  the  calculations  as  given  in  Table  IX.  In  every 
case  the  amount  of  nitrogen  present  is  in  excess  of  what  it 
should  be  if  there  had  been  no  application  of  nitrogen  other 
than  that  in  nitrate  of  soda.  The  data  seem  to  indicate  that 
nitrogen  has  been  secured  from  the  air  through  the  growth 
of  legumes  or  otherwise.  Even  on  the  check  plots  the  nitro- 
gen content  is  apparently  as  high  as  it  was  fifteen  years  ago 
when  the  experiment  was  begun.  Analyses  made  at  that 
time  of  a composite  sample  chosen  from  eight  different  points 
over  the  plots  showed  a nitrogen  content  of  1900  pounds  per 
2,000,000  pounds  of  surface  soil.  The  average  nitrogen  con- 
tent of  the  check  plots  in  1915  was  2042  pounds  per  2,000,000. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  plot  receiving  only  nitrate  of 
soda  has  suffered  a loss  of  890  pounds  of  nitrogen  although 
the  amount  of  nitrogen  added  was  only  672  pounds.  By  com- 
paring this  plot  with  the  one  receiving  sulphate  of  potash  and 
nitrate  of  soda  it  will  be  observed  that  the  loss  is  consider- 
ably reduced,  being  only  138  pounds.  Plots  31,  receiving 
nitrate  of  soda  and  acid  phosphate,  shows  a gain  of  213 
pounds.  One  is  led  to  infer  from  this  that  acid  phosphate  and 
sulphate  of  potash  have  in  some  way  either  prevented  this 
loss  or  have  been  responsible  in  some  way  for  an  accumulation 
of  nitrogen  sufficient  to  offset  this  loss.  Plot  26,  receiving  an 
application  of  acid  phosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash,  shows 
an  increase  amounting  to  1173  pounds  per  acre. 

The  evidence  seems  to  be  sufficient  to  justify  the  state- 
ment that  there  has  been  a nitrogen  fixation  in  the  soil  on  the 
plots  receiving  acid  phosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash  vary- 
ing from  20  pounds  per  acre  per  year,  on  the  plot  receiving 
acid  phosphate  alone,  to  78  pounds  per  acre  per  year  on  the 
plot  receiving  acid  phosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash.  Table 
IX  shows  the  amount  of  nitrogen  fixed  on  the  various  plots 
since  1900,  figured  on  the  basis  of  an  acre  of  soil  to  a depth 
of  20  inches  and  weighing  6,000,000  pounds.  Of  course  it 
may  be  possible  that  the  crops  contained  more  nitrogen  than 
the  analyses  given  in  Table  III  would  indicate,  but  even  so, 
we  have  not  taken  into  consideration  the  loss  of  nitrogen  in 
the  drainage  water  which  in  the  case  of  plots  receiving  nitrate 
of  soda  must  have  been  considerable.  The  analyses  of  the 
drainage  water  from  Broadbalk  field  at  Rothamsted*  indicate 


•Hall,  The  Soil,  p.  201. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


17 


that  this  must  have  been  true.  The  soil  on  the  Experiment 
Station  farm  overlies  sandstone  and  is  very  well  drained. 
Plots  receiving  nitrogen  but  no  phosphorus  show  a serious 
loss  of  nitrogen.  Only  three  legumes  have  been  grown  on  the 
plots  during  the  experiment  and  these  crops  were  removed 
from  the  plots,  so  that  most  of  the  nitrogen  fixation  must 
have  been  brough  about  by  some  other  agency.  Azotobacter 
chroococcum  and  Clostridium  pasteurianum  are  both  present 
in  the  soil  of  the  fertility  plots. 

Either  acid  phosphate  or  sulphate  of  potash  has  been  of 
value  in  aiding  nitrogen  fixation  but  a combination  of  both 
has  been  considerably  more  effective  than  either  applied  alone. 


DIAGRAM  II. 


Correlation  Between  Total  P,  N,and  C 
in  Soil  of  Fertility  Plots . 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


£CC 


+ 


05  CO  OO  fO 
O)  t>  CO  H 
O 1-H 


+ + 


05  K5  ® 

CO  05  05 

oq  N oo 

+ 1 + 1 


Qi  u 

^O-wHl>lO.00  00HH  O t- 
« M O CO  lO  05  CO  Oq  t—  CO 

3.5*  n CO  uo  N (D 

I + I I + + I I + 

O 


O o 

BuS 

E-1  ° 


05  N ^ 

CO  eo 
oq 


t— I OO  t—  05 
00  ^ N 


+ I V + + + I 


oq 


00 
UO 
oq 

+ + 


a j rf 


oq  oo  zo 
H 05  oq 
CO  LO 


+ | + + + + | 


w w>3.2 

sfs^oS 

CD  'w 


CO  CO 
^ oq 
CO  Tf 


o o 
oq  cq 
CO 

oq  oq 


a>aC>Ocqoq  <M®''tf  oq  ® 

•QOg^-^C-^Ht-OOCOt-CO 
gccCOOlOOSCOlOCO  CO  05 

XSgoqoqoqoqoqoqoq  oq  ,-h 

gOn 


K O ^ 
X O 
o 

'y  * 

r\  . co 

- 5 ® o 

50  230 
°?^  S 
H^oS 


O’  ® 
CO  CO 

r-t  t- 

oq  r-i 


c-  oq 

+ + 


+ + + + + 


00  CO  CO  ® ® 

CO  CO  CO  OO  05 

05  ® 1-1  oq  oq 

th  oq  oq  oq  oq 


® ® ® ® ® ® ® 

CO  OO  ® ® r-l  ® CO 

co  oq  co  'O'  co  co  oq 

oq  oq  oq  oq  oq  oq  oq 


Zp, 


o 

C$ 

o 

PlT 

o 

•» 

cd 

o 

Oh  £ 


,2  £ os  oq  co  oo  05  th  oq  ^ la 
Pl,  T-ioqoqoqoqcocococo 


>>> 


o o 

ca  cc 
hh 


[Bulletin  160 


tTable 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


19 


The  Phosphorus  Balance. 

Every  plot  which  has  received  applications  of  manure  or 
acid  phosphate  shows  a high  content  of  phosphorus.  Ap- 
parently all  or  most  of  the  phosphorus  applied  in  the  form  of 
fertilizer  which  was  not  used  by  the  crops  is  still  present  in 
the  surface  soil,  having  never  diffused  to  any  considerable 
extent  into  the  subsoil.  This  is  shown  in  Table  X in  which 
the  actual  gain  in  phosphorus  as  measured  by  the  check  plots 
is  compared  with  the  calculated  gains  as  given  in  Table  V.  It 
will  be  seen  that  there  is  a rather  close  agreement  between 
the  two,  sufficiently  so  to  justify  the  statement  that  the  phos- 
phorus applied  to  the  soil  in  excess  of  the  needs  of  the  crop 
has  been  fixed  within  the  first  6^3  inches  of  soil. 

TABLE  X. — The  Phosphorus  Balance.  (Pounds  per  2,000,000  Pounds 

of  Surface  Soil.) 

Phosphorus 

Calculated  Calculated 


Plot 

Treatment 

Phosphorus 

from 

Gain 

Gain  or 

Phosphorus 

No. 

Present 

Checksf 

or  Loss 

Loss* 

Balance 

19 

N,  P,  K,  CaO 

740 

590 

4-150 

+171 

— 21 

22 

CaO  

520 

593 

— 73 

— 1 

— 72 

26 

N,  P,  K 

900 

607 

4-293 

+180 

+113 

28 

P,  K 

860 

640 

4-220 

+236 

— 16 

29 

N,  K 

640 

670 

— 30 

— 16 

— 14 

31 

N,  P 

880 

713 

4-167 

+201 

— 34 

32 

K 

720 

727 

— 7 

— 5 

— 2 

34 

P 

880 

707 

4-173 

+253 

— 80 

35 

N 

620 

673 

— 53 

— 6 

— 47 

f See  Table  VIII. 

*See  Table  V. 

The  Carbon  Balance. 

The  amounts  of  organic  matter  present  in  the  soil  on  the 
plots-  vary  considerably  with  different  fertilizer  treatments. 
There  is  a very  close  correlation  in  most  cases  between  the 
amounts  of  carbon,  phosphorus,  and  nitrogen  in  the  various 
plots  as  shown  in  Diagram  II.  The  relation  between  total 
carbon  and  the  organic  matter  in  the  soil  is  not  definitely 
known.  The  factor  1.724*  is  used  frequently  to  estimate  the 
organic  matter  from  the  total  carbon.  In  all  plots  receiving- 
fertilizing  materials  the  content  of  organic  matter  is  greater 
than  in  the  check  plots.  It  must  be  remembered  that  no  green 
manuring  crop  or  manure  was  applied  to  any  of  the  fertilizer 
plots.  Any  increase  in  organic  matter  must  have  come  from 
the  roots  and  stubble  of  the  crops  produced.  We  have  already 
shown  that  the  content  of  nitrogen  in  the  check  plots  is  as 
much  as  or  more  than  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment. 
We  assume  from  the  correlation  between  nitrogen  and  carbon 

*Wiley,  Principles  and  Practice  of  Agricultural  Analysis,  Vol.  I. 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


as  shown  in  Diagram  II  referred  to  before  that  the  content  of 
organic  matter  has  remained  practically  constant  in  the  check 
plots,  and  largely  because  the  soil  was  so  low  in  fertility  orig- 
inally that  the  organic  matter  remaining  behind  represented 
only  that  which  was  very  resistant  to  decay.  The  evidence 
indicates  that  organic  matter  can  be  maintained  and  increased 
by  the  use  of  fertilizers  without  plowing  down  green  crops 
or  anything  other  than  the  stubble  left  behind  after  the  crop 
is  harvested.  It  will  be  observed  that  there  is  a considerable 
increase  in  the  amount  of  organic  matter  in  the  soil  of  the 
plot  receiving  the  complete  fertilizer. 


TABLE 

XI. — Carbon 

and  Organic  Matter 

Balance. 

(Pounds  per 

2,000,000  Pounds  of  Surface 

Soil.) 

Carbon 

Carbon 

Organic 

Plot 

Treatment 

Carbon 

Calculated 

Gain  or 

Matter* 

No. 

Present 

from  Checksf 

Loss 

Gain  or  Loss 

19 

N, 

P,  K,  CaO.... 

24500 

23000 

+ 1500 

+ 2586 

20 

M, 

CaO  

32500 

22100 

+10400 

+17930 

22 

CaO  

19400 

21317 

— 917 

— 1581 

25 

M 

36800 

21667 

+15133 

+26089 

26 

N, 

P,  K 

30400 

21783 

+ 8617 

+14856 

28 

P, 

K 

26000 

23367 

+ 2633 

+ 4539 

29 

N, 

K 

27000 

24833 

+ 2167 

+ 3736 

31 

N, 

P 

28000 

26667 

+ 1333 

+ 2298 

32 

K 

29200 

27033 

+ 2167 

+ 3736 

34 

P 

28200 

26400 

+ 1800 

+ 3103 

35 

N 

28800 

25400 

+ 3400 

+ 5875 

tTable  VIII. 
*Carbon  x 1.724. 


THE  BAD  EFFECTS  OF  BURNED  LIME. 

On  the  plots  to  which  lime  has  been  applied  there  are 
certain  outstanding  effects  which  can  be  observed  by  a study 
of  the  analyses.  Referring  to  Table  I,  it  will  be  noticed  that 
the  use  of  lime  alone  has  been  responsible  for  a loss  in  yield 
as  an  average  of  the  last  fifteen  years.  When  used  in  con- 
nection with  manure  or  fertilizer  it  has  produced  an  increase 
in  yield.  As  to  what  this  increase  amounted  to  when  applied 
with  manure  cannot  be  ascertained  since  the  plot  receiving 
manure  and  lime  had  a total  of  210  tons  of  manure  as  com- 
pared to  190  tons  on  the  plot  receiving  no  lime.  On  the  fer- 
tilizer plot  the  use  of  lime  has  produced  an  increase  amount- 
ing to  a total  of  2695  pounds  of  produce  in  fifteen  years,  little 
more  than  sufficient  to  pay  for  the  lime.  However,  the  ap- 
plication of  lime  has  caused  a decrease  in  nitrogen,  phos- 
phorus, and  carbon  in  the  soil  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  in- 
creased crops  produced.  Table  XII  shows  this  loss.  In  every 
case  the  application  of  lime  has  proved  detrimental  to  the 
surface  soil. 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


21 


z £ 


O CO 
O CO 
CO  oo 


z _ 

O * CO  o 
P5  f5.  00  O 

« £ c-  o 

< H CO 
Og  CM 


CM 


O t- 
O 1-1 

cm  co 


O — 

£ o 
c* 

O o 

■P  o 
«£ 
° 3 
T3  C/5 
C 
CO 


a° 
co  0. 

o 

-C  o 


c8 

4)  O 

g’cN 

£ t- 
±!  <u 

Z a- 


</)  3 
W O 


o o 
o o 

LO 

O 

co  cm 


o o 
o o 

OO  lO 
CO  CM 
CO  CO 


o o 
o o 

CM  Tfi 


g CO  - 

E CD  lO 

CD  CM  i-H 

Bfi 

P Q 
« W 

wi  is-  O 

£ g o 05 

WU 

pH 


o o 

O Tfl 
05  C- 


O CO 


o o 

CM  tO 
CM  O 


o co 

05  05 

LO  LO 


O O 
05  CM 
lO  LO 


Z oo  CO  io> 
5 CM  rH  iH 
SK  O CM  U5 


g*  00 

si  s 


CO  O CO 
N t»  lO 
CO  00  ^ 


t-  o 

iH  CO 
05  00 


CM  CM 
05  05 


O CM 
CO  LO 
00  OO 


o o 

CO  CO 
CO  1“H 
CM  CM 


H Pi  Ph*  ffl 
m 

£ £ 2 


o 


o o (X)  05 

gZ  CM  rH 


22 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


One  reason  for  this  may  be  the  fact  that  an  excess  of 
lime  was  applied  as  compared  to  the  needs  of  the  soil  although 
in  no  case  did  the  application  exceed  5500  pounds  per  acre  in 
15  years,  which  would  not  be  considered  excessively  heavy. 
The  lime  requirement  of  the  check  plots  at  present  amounts 
to  practically  3000  pounds  of  CaCOs  per  2,000,000  pounds  of 
surface  soil,  which  is  equivalent  to  1680  pounds  of  CaO.  It 
will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  lime  was  applied  in  considerably 
larger  amounts  than  the  surface  soil  required.  However,  the 
subsoils  on  the  plots  receiving  lime  still  show  a lime  require- 
ment averaging  over  3200  pounds  of  CaCOs  to  a depth  of 
twenty  inches. 

THE  EFFECT  OF  MANURE  AND  FERTILIZERS  ON 
THE  LIME  REQUIREMENT  OF  THE  SOIL. 

The  use  of  manure  and  fertilizers  has  had  a tendency  to 
decrease  the  acidity  of  the  soil  as  shown  in  Table  XIII.  Sul- 
phate of  potash  is  the  only  one  of  the  three  commercial  ferti- 
lizers used  which  did  not  have  this  tendency. 

The  statement  is  frequently  made  that  the  use  of  acid 
phosphate  will  make  a soil  acid.  This  work  verifies  the  state- 
ments published  by  certain  other  experiment  stations*^  and 
indicates  that  the  belief  that  the  soil  will  become  acid  from 
the  use  of  acid  phosphate  is  without  foundation.  The  analyses 
of  the  plots  together  with  the  data  showing  their  present  crop 
producing  power  indicate  that  it  is  possible  to  grow  very 
large  crops  on  acid  soils  without  the  use  of  lime  and  at  the 
same  time  to  be  able  to  bring  about  a gradual  decrease  in 
the  lime  requirement  of  these  soils. 


*Connor,  S.  D.,  Jour.  Iud.  & Bag.  Chem.,  Vol.  VIII.  No.  1,  p.  35. 
tBrooks,  Wm.  P.,  Bulletin  162,  Massachusetts  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


TABLE  XIII.— The  Lime  Requirement  of  the  Soil  of  the  Fertilizer  Plots. 
(Pounds  of  CaC03  Required  per  Acre.) 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


23 


so  a ■*J  <U 

OS®.* 


o o 

(C  ® CO 
1— I LO  LO 
LO  LO 


Tf  CC>  C-  CM  LO  zo  CO 1 

CO  CO  ZD  CO  CO  <X>  O 

CO  GO  <M  LO  CO  <M 


i I I I I I I I I + I 


OS  J 

O u 
o 


I I I + I I I I I + I 


O =5  d •£  5 

gS-SS® 

* 


co  co  co 


m a> 

o a 

O <L> 

03 

c 


O O O O O 

o o o o o 

ZD  ZD  CO  OO  CO 

<MOCI<MCVI<M 


w O 
A”  <M 

"33  £ 


CO  c- 
CO  ZD 
CO  CO 


CO  t-  o 
CO  CO  o 
LO  <M 


I I I I I I I I 


K 

H 

^ « V,  * 

-vMO*  S os  3 

w «S  - o 

nO  2.3  a 


OC^COt'-COOOCOI^-O 

ococococooococoo 

0005rH'*S<COOOOOt-COCO 

<M<MCOCOOOOOCOCOCOCO 


M a>  o 

oa  s 

O o 

03 .2  i 

o 3 

I 


oooooooooo 

COOOOOOOOOO 
tH  CO  OO  00  <M  CO  ■'C*  <M  CO  "sf 

i-Hs-i<M<Mcococoeoeoco 


W 

fL  w W pH 

£ p;  z £ 


W pH  £ 


O®  OS 
^ 1—1 


O <M  CO  LO  CO  OO  05  tH  <M  Tt<  LO 
<M<M<M<M<M<M<MCOCOCOCO 


3400  3600  — 200  2600  2600  — 0 — 200 


24 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


THE  APPLICATION  OF  THESE  INTERPRETATIONS. 

The  analyses  of  these  plots  and  the  interpretations  put 
on  them,  if  they  are  correct,  indicate  several  things  of  far- 
reaching  importance  to  the  agriculture  of  West  Virginia: 

1.  The  nitrogen  of  the  soil  can  be  maintained  and  in- 
creased without  purchasing  it  in  the  form  of  commercial  fer- 
tilizers, even  if  all  the  crops  are  removed  from  the  farm.  In 
fact  it  does  not  seem  at  all  necessary,  in  view  of  the  results 
obtained  on  the  Experiment  Station  farm  as  to  crop  yields 
and  also  as  to  the  present  nitrogen  content  of  the  soil  on  the 
plots  receiving  phosphorus  and  potassium,  to  buy  nitrogen  in 
the  form  of  fertilizers  for  permanent  soil  building. 

2.  The  value  of  phosphorus  and  potassium  over  phos- 
phorus alone  as  a fertilizer  may,  at  least  partly  if  not  largely, 
be  explained  by  an  indirect  function  of  potassium : viz.,  its 
value  as  an  aid  to  nitrogen  fixation.  It  seems  possible  from 
these  analyses  that  it  may  be  advisable  to  include  potassium 
in  the  fertilizer  used  on  soils  in  a low  state  of  fertility  instead 
of  using  acid  phosphate  alone  as  is  now  being  largely  practic- 
ed in  West  Virginia.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  use  of 
acid  phosphate  alone  is  objectionable  but  that  a combination 
of  potash  salts  and  acid  phosphate  may  be  more  effective 
not  alone  in  its  present  crop-producing  power  but  also  in  its 
residual  effect  on  the  soil.  However,  this  potash  supply  may 
be  manure  instead  of  fertilizer. 

3.  Soil  acidity  is  not  necessarily  a condition  of  the  soil 
which  must  be  overcome  by  the  use  of  lime  in  order  to  pro- 
duce satisfactory  crops.  The  soil  on  the  Experiment  Station 
farm  has  a higher  lime  requirement  than  the  average  West 
Virginia  soil.  Yet,  excellent  crops  have  been  produced  at  a 
profit  on  the  Experiment  Station  farm  without  the  use  of 
either  lime  or  limestone.  The  plots  receiving  acid  phosphate, 
acid  phosphate  and  sulphate  of  potash,  complete  fertilizer, 
and  manure  are  in  much  better  condition  today  than  they  were 
when  the  experiment  was  begun  in  1900.  These  plots  not 
only  show  a lower  acidity  than  the  check  plots  but  they  have 
a much  higher  content  of  both  organic  matter  and  nitrogen 
than  they  had  originally. 

This  would  indicate  that  farmers  living  some  distance 
from  a railroad  station  or  from  a source  of  lime  or  limestone 
are  not  compelled  to  buy  and  apply  lime  in  order  to  produce 


August,  1916]  RESIDUAL  EFFECTS  OF  FERTILIZERS 


25 


large  crops  economically.  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that 
limestone,  where  it  can  be  secured  at  a reasonable  cost,  can 
not  be  applied  to  advantage  on  acid  soils. 

4.  These  analyses  indicate  that  organic  matter  can  be 
maintained  and  increased  in  the  soil  without  plowing  down 
anything  but  the  stubble  left  behind  after  the  crops  have  been 
harvested,  if  a rotation  of  crops  is  followed  and  use  is  made 
of  either  fertilizer  or  manure.  Organic  matter  can  be  in- 
creased in  the  soil  by  growing  large  crops  in  rotation,  even 
though  the  crops  are  removed  from  the  farm.  It  has  always 
seemed  doubtful  in  the  minds  of  writers  whether  the  spas- 
modic attempts  to  increase  the  organic  matter  in  the  soil  by 
plowing  down  some  crop  such  as  soybeans,  which  could  have 
been  used  for  some  other  purpose,  is  advisable.  Such  a pro- 
cedure not  only  means  the  loss  of  the  use  of  the  land  for  that 
season  but  also  a considerable  cost  for  labor  and  seed.  The 
soybeans  could  have  been  fed  as  hay  and  the  manure  returned 
to  the  field,  or  they  could  have  been  sold  and  a part  of  their 
value  invested  in  fertilizer.  Either  the  fertilizer  or  the  manure, 
by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it  produced  a large  crop,  would  have 
increased  the  organic  matter  in  the  soil  by  che  roots  and 
stubble  of  this  crop. 

This  is  not  meant  to  discourage  the  plowing  down  of 
cover  crops  but  is  meant  to  implv  that  it  does  not  seem  ad- 
visable to  lose  the  use  of  the  soil  during  the  main  growing 
season  for  this  purpose. 

5.  The  evidence  indicates  that  the  acidity  of  the  soil  can 
be  reduced  by  increasing  the  organic  matter  in  the  soil.  The 
plots  receiving  manure  show  a reduced  acidity.  The  plots 
which  have  received  any  combination  of  fertilizers  which  in- 
creased the  yields  materially  show  a higher  content  of  organic 
matter  and  a lower  acidity  than  neighboring  check  plots.  In 
general  it  may  be  said  that  the  acidity  of  the  plots  has  been 
reduced  wherever  the  content  of  organic  matter  has  been 
increased.  Limestone  boulders  which  by  accident  were  buried 
in  an  acid  soil,  when  excavated  a few  years  later,  were  covered 
with  a heavy  coating  of  very  black  organic  matter  such  as  to 
make  them  have  the  appearance  of  coal.  It  seems  possible 
that  the  reverse  of  this  may  be  true:  viz.,  that  if  the  soil  is 
well  stocked  with  organic  matter,  the  lime  in  solution  in  the 
soil  may  be  precipitated  by  this  organic  matter.  On  the  sub- 
sequent decay  of  this  organic  matter  the  lime  may  be  released 
as  the  carbonate.  We  consider  this  statement  merely  as  a 
working  hypothesis. 


26 


W.  VA.  AGR’L,  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  160 


6.  The  best  means  of  maintaining  the  fertility  of  the  soil 
is  to  make  it  produce  large  crops.  If  for  any  reason  the  yield 
begins  to  gradually  decrease,  the  result  will  be  that  the  nitro- 
gen and  organic  matter  will  begin  to  decrease  and  the  acidity 
of  the  soil  will  increase.  When  once  the  soil  has  reached  the 
state  of  unproductivity  in  which  many  West  Virginia  soils 
are  found  today  heroic  efforts  may  be  required  to  bring  them 
back  to  a normal  state  of  productivity.  We  feel  quite  sure, 
however,  that  these  worn  out  soils  can  be  made  to  produce 
large  crops  by  making  use  of  nothing  but  acid  phosphate  in 
connection  with  good  farming.  We  believe  it  can  be  done 
more  rapidly  and  perhaps  more  economically  by  the  use  of 
potash  and  lime.  Again  it  can  be  hastened  by  the  use  of 
nitrogenous  fertilizers,  but  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that 
this  is  doubtful  economy. 


Bulletin  161 


August,  1916 


Wt$ t Virginia  Untoergitp 
Agricultural  experiment  Station 

MORGANTOWN 


DEPARTMENT  OF  SOILS 


ANALYSES  OF  ONE  HUNDRED 
WEST  VIRGINIA  SOILS 


BY 

Firman  E.  Bear  and  Robert  M.  Salter 


Bulletins  and  Reports  of  this  Station  will  be  mailed  free  to  any  citizen  of 
West  Virginia  upon  written  application.  Address  Director  of  the  West  Virginia 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 


THE  STATE  OF  WEST  VIRGINIA 

Educational  Institutions 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  CONTROL 


JAMES  S.  LAKIN,  President Charleston,  W.  Va. 

A.  BLISS  McCRUM Charleston,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  WILLIAMSON Charleston,  W.  Va. 


The  State  Board  of  Control  has  the  direction  of  the  financial  and 
business  affairs  of  the  state  educational  institutions. 


THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS 

M.  P.  SHAWKEY,  President Charleston  W.  Va. 

State  Superintendent  of  Schools 

GEORGE  S.  LAIDLEY Charleston,  W.  Va. 

ARLEN  G.  SWIGER Sistersville,  W.  Va. 

EARL  W.  OGLEBAY Wheeling,  W.  Va. 

JOSEPH  M.  MURPHY Parkersburg,  W.  Va. 

The  State  Board  of  Regents  has  charge  of  all  matters  of  a purely 
scholastic  nature  concerning  the  state  educational  institutions. 


The  West  Virginia  University 

FRANK  BUTLER  TROTTER,  LL.D President 


AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


JOHN  LEE  COULTER,  A.M.,  Ph.D 

BERT  H.  HITE,  M.S 

W.  E.  RUMSEY,  B.S.  Agr 

N.  J.  GIDDINGS,  M.S 

HORACE  ATWOOD,  M.S.  Agr.... 

I.  S.  COOK,  Jk.,  B.S.  Agr : 

W.  H.  ALDERMAN,  B.S.  Agr.......... 

L.  M.  PEAIRS,  M.S 

E.  W.  SHEETS,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S 

FIRMAN  E BEAR,  M.Sc 

C.  A.  LUEDER,  D.V.M 

fL.  I.  KNIGHT,  Ph.D 

A.  L.  DACY,  B.Sc 

FRANK  B.  KUNST,  A.B 

CHARLES  E.  WEAKLEY,  Jr 

J.  H.  BERGHIUS-KRAK,  B.Sc 

GEORGE  W.  BURKE,  B.S 

ROBERT  M.  SALTER,  M.Sc 

ANTHONY  BERG,  B.S 

E.  C.  AUCHTER,  B.S.  Agr 

L.  F.  SUTTON,  B.S.,  B.S.  Agr 

H.  L.  CRANE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  B.  KEMP,  B.S.  Agr 

HENRY  DORSEY,  B.S.  Agr.,  M.S.  Agr. 

E.  L.  ANDREWS,  B.S.  Agr 

♦A.  J DADISMAN,  M.S.  Agr 

J.  J.  YOKE,  B.S.  Agr 

R.  H.  TUCKWILLER,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  C.  RAGSDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

A.  J.  SWIFT,  M.S.  Agr 

*C.  H.  SCHERFFIUS 

A,  B.  BROOKS,  B.S.  Agr. , i 

C.  E.  STOCKDALE,  B.S.  Agr 

W.  J.  WHITE 


Director 

Vice-Director  and  Chemist 

State  Entomologist 

.. Plant  Pathologist 

Poultryman 

Consulting  Agronomist 

Horticulturist 

Research  Entomologist 

Animal  Industry 

Soil  Investigations 

Veterinary  Science 

Plant  Physiologist 

Associate  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Chemist 

. Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Chemist 

Assistant  Soil  Chemist 

Assistant  Plant  Pathologist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

Assistant  Horticulturist 

.Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  Agronomist 

Assistant  in  Poultry  Husbandry 

Farm  Management 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

Assistant  in  Animal  Industry 

In  Charge  of  Tobacco  Experiments 

. Forester 

Agricultural  Editor 

Bookkeeper 


fin  co-operation  with  the  University  of  Chicago. 

*In  co-operation  with  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 


CONCLUSIONS. 


These  conclusions  are  summarized  from  the  analyses  of  one 
hundred  samples  of  West  Virginia  soils. 

1.  Fifty  percent  of  these  soils  contain  less  than 
1000  pounds  of  phosphorus  per  acre  to  a depth  of  6^3 
inches.  The  use  of  acid  phosphate  on  such  soils  would 
produce  a marked  increase  in  their  crop-producing 
power. 

2.  Over  forty  percent  of  these  soils  contain  less 
than  2500  pounds  of  nitrogen  per  acre  to  a depth  of 
6^3  inches.  Heavy  yields  of  most  crops  cannot  be 
produced  on  such  soils  until  more  nitrogen  is  present 
in  them.  This  nitrogen  can  be  secured  from  the  air 
by  growing  legumes. 

3.  Ninety  percent  of  these  soils  show  a need  of 
lime  averaging  over  one  ton  of  limestone  per  acre. 
Alfalfa  and  red  clover  cannot  be  grown  to  advantage 
on  such  soils  until  lime  has  been  applied.  Either 
ground  limestone  or  burned  lime  can  be  used  to  ad- 
vantage. 

4.  The  amount  of  organic  matter  present  in  these 
soils  is  not  half  what  it  should  be.  The  organic  mat- 
ter can  be  increased  by  growing  larger  crops  and  by 
plowing  under  cover  crops  and  manure. 

5.  Eighty  percent  of  these  soils  contain  more  than 
20,000  pounds  of  potassium  per  acre  to  plow  depth. 
If  the  other  deficiencies  in  these  soils  were  supplied, 
there  should  be  sufficient  available  potassium  to  pre- 
vent its  being  a limiting  factor. 


Analyses  of  One  Hundred  West  Virginia  Soils* 


By  FIRMAN  E.  BEAR  and  ROBERT  M.  SALTER. 


It  is  the  intention  of  the  department  of  soils  of  the  West 
Virginia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  to  make  a study  of 
the  most  important  soil  types  in  every  county  of  the  state  and 
to  determine  the  amounts  of  the  various  plant  food  elements 
contained  in  them.  This  bulletin  is  a preliminary  report  con- 
cerning the  most  prominent  soil  series  together  with  the 
analyses  of  100  samples  chosen  from  certain  sections  of  the 
state. 


SOIL  SURVEYS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
BUREAU  OF  SOILS. 

The  United  States  Bureau  of  Soils  has  been  co-operating 
with  the  West  Virginia  Geological  Survey  in  its  work  in  this 
state.  As  each  area  is  surveyed  as  to  its  mineral  content  it 
is  also  mapped  as  to  its  soil  types.  It  has  seemed  advisable 
to  accept  the  soil  classification  as  outlined  by  the  Bureau  of 
Soils  and  to  choose  our  samples  as  largely  as  possible  from 
areas  which  have  already  been  surveyed.  Up  to  the  present 
time  one-half  of  the  state  has  been  mapped.  The  soil  surveys 
are  issued  under  authorization  of  Congress  and  the  distribu- 
tion provides  500  copies  of  each  soil  survey  in  the  state  for 
each  of  the  senators  from  the  state  and  2000  copies  of  each 
survey  for  the  congressman  representing  the  district  in  which 
the  survey  is  located.  Soil  surveys  are  available  for  the  fol- 
lowing counties  and  can  be  obtained  by  writing  to  the  sena- 
tors or  to  the  congressmen  representing  the  various  districts: 


Boone 

Brooke 

Cabell 

Calhoun 

Doddridge 

Hancock 

Harrison 

Jackson 


Kanawha 

Lincoln 

Logan 

McDowell 

Marion 

Marshall 

Mason 

Mingo 


Monongalia 

Ohio 

Pleasants 

Preston 

Putnam 

Raleigh 

Ritchie 

Roane 


Taylor 

Tyler 

Upshur 

Wayne 

Wetzel 

Wirt 

Wood 

Wyoming 


•For  methods  of  analysis  see  Bulletin  159,  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station,  Morgantown. 


6 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


Many  of  the  soils,  the  analyses  of  which  are  given  in  this 
bulletin,  have  been  chosen  from  the  above  named  counties 
and  represent  definite  soil  types.  Other  samples  have  been 
chosen  from  areas  which  have  not  yet  been  surveyed  and 
represent  definite  soil  types  which  will  be  classified  later  when 
the  soil  survey  of  the  state  has  been  completed. 

The  Bureau  of  Soils*  has  divided  the  United  States  into 
13  soil  provinces  or  regions.  “A  province  is  an  area  in  which 
the  soils  have  been  produced  by  the  same  force  or  group 
of  forces.” 

In  West  Virginia  three  provinces  are  represented: 

I.  Limestone  Valleys  and  Uplands  Province. 

II.  Appalachian  Mountains  and  Plateaus  Province. 

III.  The  River  Flood  Plains  Province. 

In  each  province  there  are  several  soil  series.  “A  soil 
series  is  a group  of  soils  having  the  same  range  in  color,  the 
same  character  of  subsoil  as  regards  color  and  structure,  the 
same  relief  and  drainage  and  a common  or  similar  origin.” 

The  following  series  are  represented  in  West  Virginia  in 
the  areas  so  far  surveyed.  This  does  not  include  the  Eastern 
Panhandle  or  the  soils  of  the  types  in  Greenbrier  and  Poca- 
hontas counties. 

I.  Limestone  Valleys  and  Uplands  Province 

1.  Brooke  series 

a.  Soils  grayish  brown  to  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  yellowish  brown  to  reddish  brown  clay. 

c.  Soils  derived  from  pure  limestone  with  an  occa- 
sional admixture  of  material  from  sandstone  and 
shales. 

d.  Soils  with  good  drainage,  fairly  ‘productive,  easy  to 
cultivate. 

2.  Hagerstown  series  (Not  surveyed  as  yet  in  West  Vir- 

ginia but  present  in  limestone  valley  section  of 
‘Greenbrier  and  Pocahontas  and  other  eastern  coun- 
ties and  in  the  Eastern  Panhandle). 

a.  Soils  prevailing  brown  in  color. 

b.  Subsoils  light  brown  to  reddish  brown. 

c.  Soils  derived  from  pure  massive  limestone. 

d.  Soils  very  productive  and  suitable  for  most  crops 

II.  Appalachian  Mountains  and  Plateaus  Province 

1.  Dekalb  series 

a.  Soils  gray  to  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  some  shade  of  yellow. 


*U.  S.  Bureau  of  Soils,  Bulletin  96. 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


7 


c.  Soils  derived  from  sandstone  and  shales. 

d.  Soils  generally  not  very  productive.  (West  Vir- 
ginia Experiment  Station  farm  is  Dekalb  soil.) 

2.  Meigs  series 

a.  Soils  variable  in  character  from  gray  or  pale  yel- 
low to  red. 

b.  Subsoils  variable. 

c.  Soils  a mixture  of  Dekalb  and  Upshur. 

d.  Soils  on  hilly  areas  difficult  to  cultivate. 

3.  Upshur  series 

a.  Soils  Indian  red. 

b.  Subsoils  Indian  red. 

c.  Derived  from  sandstone  and  shales,  frequently  cal- 
careous in  nature. 

d.  Generally  fairly  productive. 

4.  Westmoreland  series 

a.  Soils  grayish  brown  to  yellowish  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  yellowish  to  yellowish  brown. 

c.  Derived  from  sandstone  and  shales  with  inter- 
bedded  limestone  and  calcareous  shales. 

d.  Soils  very  productive. 

III.  The  River  Flood  Plains  Province 
A.  Terrace  Soils 

1.  Elk  series 

a.  Soils  light  brown  to  brown. 

b.  Yellow  subsoils. 

c.  Soils  contain  limestone,  alluvium  from  Westmore- 
land series. 

d.  Soils  fairly  productive. 

2.  Holston  series 

a.  Soils  yellowish  brown  to  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  yellow. 

c.  Soils  from  sandstone  and  shale. 

d.  Only  fairly  productive. 

3.  Tyler  series 

a.  Soils  gray  to  grayish  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  yellowish  to  mottled  yellow  and  gray. 

c.  Soils  largely  from  sandstone  and  shale,  poorly 
drained. 

d.  Not  very  productive. 

4.  Wheeling  series 

a.  Soils  brown  to  yellowish  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  gravelly. 

c.  Soils  from  glacial  material, 

d.  Very  productive. 


8 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


B.  First  Bottom  Soils 

5.  Holly  series 

a.  Soils  gray. 

b.  Subsoils  mottled  gray  and  yellow. 

c.  Contain  some  limestone,  poorly  drained. 

d.  Not  very  productive. 

6.  Huntington  series. 

a.  Soils  light  brown  to  brown. 

b.  Subsoils  yellow  to  light  brown. 

c.  Contain  some  limestone. 

d.  Very  productive. 

7.  Moshannon  series 

a.  Soils  reddish  brown  to  Indian  red. 

b.  Subsoils  reddish  brown. 

c.  Soils  from  alluvium  from  Upshur  series. 

d.  Very  productive. 

Table  1 shows  the  number  of  acres  belonging  to  each 
series  in  the  area  so  far  surveyed. 

TABLE  I. — Acres  of  Land  in  Various  Soil  Series 
in  West  Virginia. 


Series  Acres 

Dekalb  3,142,536 

Meigs  2,718,848 

Rough  Stony  Land 823,466 

Huntington  360,576 

Upshur  . — 319,744 

Westmoreland  166,080 

Holston  120,512 

Moshannon  62,592 

Tyler  60,672 

Brooke  47,232 

Wheeling  40,770 

Elk  31,872 

Holly  27,520 

Miscellaneous  12,928 


Total  7,935,348 


In  each  of  these  soil  series  there  are  several  soil  types. 
“A  soil  type  is  a soil  which  throughout  the  area  of  its  occur- 
rence has  the  same  texture,  structure,  color,  character  of  sub- 
soil, general  topography,  process  of  derivation,  and  usually 
derived  from  the  same  material.”  There  may,  therefore,  be 
sands,  silts,  loams,  and  clays  in  each  of  the  above  series.  For 
example,  the  soil  on  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Experi- 
ment Station  farm  is  a Dekalb  silt  loam. 


Limestone 

Owner  of  Farm  Postoffice  Soil  Series  Nitrogen  Phosphorus  Potassium  Carbon  Requirem’t 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


o o o 
o o o 
00  <M  zo 

i— 1 00  r- i 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooo  oo  ooooo 

OOO^TtfOO  OON  OOrfCOM 

H H M H i— I H M N H N 


o o o o 

o o o 

o <x>  oo 

CO  MM 


Ub  05  <N 
LO  CO  03 
CO  CO 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

NNHOMCOOHOIOHIOMCIOO 

OHOCJ'I'OOMOOIHHIXMtI* 

CIOXM^WM^OHCOOOOHOO 

HNNNHNNNMNNHCONCO 


o o 

t-  CO 

o uo 


: t- 
: os 
: o 
: co 


ooo  ooooooooooooooo  oooo  o 

ooo  ooooooooooooooo  oooo  o 

CO-^fCO  o-^oocNioooweoooocqoooo  O O O C\|  00 

00005  OHCOOMai05HC5COHO«U5M  00  OO  H H O 

H <cq  -f  ^lON^LO^MN^OCOM^iaifii  oo  N CO  cq 


lOtOCC 
CO  05  CO 
oooq  oq 


HOtOOO®QO(NMMM^lOr-t> 
COOICOlONCOC5kOOOHOq»CO<MH 
COTttlOrlOOCOIXMOiCOCOOCOH 
i— It— i rl  N rl  H 1—1  r- 1 H T— I 1— I r- 1 


oo  in  o io 
tc  ® woi 

lOCOWH 


^ in  n 

HOOO 
M i-H  i-l 
CO  ^ Tfl 


oocoonnHinooincq<rooNoqfnco 

mco'FHoocoi>oinc5inooooooo 

CO’FifinOlM^t'HNlCKDSlifO 

NNHNNNiNriMiMNlMiMiMCO 


NOOO 
05(0  050 

m co  h co 


i4 

>*  3 
H 


be5" 

d 

ffl 


d 

£ 

o 

-u 

m 

u 

O _ 
bfl5" 

a 

w 


& 


d d d 
£ £ £ 
ooo 


o a> 
d d 

W « P 9 to  IB  w 

rf\  Tf\  ?H  &H 

o a>  2 2 a>  a>  a> 

bfl  bJO  ^ ^ bfl  bD  bD« 

03  d § § d d d 


fl  d 
£ £ 
o o 

4-1  +J 

CO  CO 

V Vi 

a>  a> 
bfl-bo 
03  o3 


d 

3 bX)c^ 

bo  d w 

d o r:  <u 


^ V,  Vi 


bp 

© 

§ 


ft  d ft 
ft  ft  ft 


P-l  P-l  Ph 


ojD  bO 

V V 

d d 

,0 

C/2  C/2 

.9 .9 

43  43 

V V 


d d 

bflbObObObO  bOfefe 

V Vi  Vi  Vi  V V £ ft 

ddddd  d 3 ° 

ft  91  (0 

cc  c/2  c/2  c/2  c/2  cn  d ^3 

dddddvdvv 
•43  43  43  43  43  3 43  g g 

VViViViSh^qVi 

ddddd 


d 

„ „ a> 

v v d 


d 

bo  £ 

d 3 
,0  02 
02  d 

■ss 


a> 


bO  bO 
v.  v x 
d d 

C/2  C/2 


02 


dda>ddddd^d^a;3^o  33 

ggajSSSSSSSOCKlSo  SfS 


O O 
O 


d d 
d d 


® © 
fl  § 


3 

5 <4  <4  <3 

» inooi 


V Js  ® © 

a?  d S j_  d id 

<x>  d £ 


>,  N N N >, 


gQQQ  3 d d M P*  d 


|©^©©I  ||| 

33Sl3||2aslia|g 

<5  • s'  O CQ  -•  rK  4-> 


a o 

(ft  Sj 


Sg-gSfi-gSri  . .vo  . 


o 

O 

O g 

§ 03 

2 V 
O O 

O 

. d 
v a> 
O 02 


O g 
^ 02 

0>  d 

d +-> 

S£ 


-O 

O O 

P$  tf 


S 

9 

CQ 


•>jun(o^ooo50H(Mco^in(o^oo 

iMNMNNdCOCOCOCOMCOCOCOCO 


? 6 Ol  H ^ 3 

ir  tf  i-i  i-h  d 

CQ  HH  O 


a>  <1 


t Credit  is  due  E.  B.  Wells  and  M.  F.  Morgan  for  assistance  in  making  these  analyses. 
♦This  represents  the  amount  of  soil  in  a layer  over  an  acre  to  a depth  of  6%  Inches. 


10  W.  VA.  AGR’L.  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


•§3 

35 


o o o o o o o 
o o o o o 

Tf  OOO  ON 

HrIH  NN 


o o o o o 
o o o o o 

NOTfNOO 
N ^ (N  N N 


O O O O 
O O O O 
OOOON 
tO  'J'  N rH 


o o o o o o 
o o o o o o 

OONCOOOOO 

nmhhhn 


o o o o o o o 

NHOrlt-HM 
tONb-NOlOON 
HUJHHNt'O 
N H M N 50  H N 


©OOO® 
t'MIOLOO) 
co  cm  lo  Tf  Tf 
iomono 

Od  Tf  CO  CO  CO 


o o o o 
t-oioto 

N OO  to  lO 
TflflOOtO 
IOONN 


o o 

CO  Tf 
CO  tH 
iH  <M 
CO  CO 


: o o o 

: 05  Tf  05 
: © T-i  © 
ICONlfl 

: to  co  n 


£0 


o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 

00  © © 05  Tf  © Tf 
OJ  t-  © t-  lO  to  Tf 
Tf  j LO  tH  CO  <N  r-l 


o o o o o 
o o o o o 

© Tf  © <M  oq 

HOOtOHO 

HHrlrHN 


© © © © 
© © © © 
© © OO  Tf 

Nt-COt- 
N H H N 


u £ d o d tf  g 
3 O O £ O -T*  o 

M W “ ffi  02  M 

a o o Id  o o 


£ £ £ £ 5 

d cz  ci  ctj  ccj 
►sj  P x X ^ 

CD  02  02  02  02 

PPPPP 


e^- 


dg> 
w ffi 


©©©©©© 
© © © © © © 
Tf  O o IN  OO  O0 
CM  CM  LO  CM  LO  tf 
Tf  NNNNrl 


PL. 

0} 

d 

u 

o 

00  © © © CQ  © 

© 

H CO  CO  M © 

© OO  © © 

© © <M  © (M  © 

j=i 

tH  CO  © t-  OO  © © 

© 

NIOOOO© 

© © © OO 

CM  © Tf  © o 

a 

NOOOWHOCIO 

OO 

Tf  t>  Tf  to  CD 

lO  If  H Cl 

N If  N N ©tf 

CO 

o 

A 

Cu 

a 

« 

bfl 

tH  <M  t-h 

CQ  If-  CO  © Tf  Tf  Tf 

© 

© Tf  CM  OJ  Tf 

tH  rl  H 

© © Tf  Tf 

H H rl 

© © Tf  © (M  Tf 

o 

00  CO  © CQ  Tf  OQ  © 

Tf 

H N OO©  OO 

n OO  N OO 

CO  LO  CM  © Tf  CO 

Tf  lfl  OO  lO  CO  OO  If 

N 

(NHOtDCO 

r-i  © OO  CO 

© tf  CO  © rH  LO 

NHNMTf  HH 

CO 

H CO  CM  CM  CO 

CO  CO  CO  N 

N N Tf  Tf  M -N 

w 

d 

tf 

tf  d 

CD  ^ 

CD  o 

d o 

f-1  ■+“ 

o tf 

O bJD 

tf  <® 
2 ft 

g & d 
tf  tf 

$ & s ^ ^ & 

w m tf  fll  Q)  r—* 

^PPpPH 


UJ 


W) 

.s 

•3 

d 

d d 

saassgl 

ooS^oa 


d d 

o o 


CD 


2 o> 
tf  > 


> tf 

® raw  o 

pH  t-H  • 

tf  ° cd  u. 

fcUO^O 


tf  t!  -o 
ft  & .2  .2 
ft  ft  £ £ 

d d <d  o> 

(tf  tf  p p 


M P X r*  M 

02  cD  02  02  <D 

n ® 0)  <D  ® ® 

_g  S_  f-  Lh  In 

roUOOOO 

£ -l_>  -U  ^ +J  4-> 

k !0  m M w id 

tf  o o o o o 

<ppppp 


g 


W 0) 

ag 

a | 

CS  2 
C/2  £ 


£ tf  -3  M £ CD 

£ ° w tl^o  tf 

O ^ 

« >»  o m . f»  . tf  _ 

a tf  tf  j-  w d 

o 3 tf  tf  • ® ^ o 


CD  ^ 

•9  00  P <M  Tf  LO  © Tf 

^ H N N h h 00 


d 

d 

B 

^ tf 

o 


H 


c 

3 

O 

O 

CD 

D1 

T3 


5 

T3  • 
O 2 

Q P 


<D 


s ► 

•sgs 

d 


<d  _ . 

T tf  O 

>s  fa  W3  tf 


tn 
CD 

tf 

3 <i  > d tf  pq 

o 

o tf  p h P i-i 

0) 

4-» 

« «<  <3  <3  <J  <J 

>> 

re 


® £ 
d 

tf  3 P 
?>  c o « <j 
« o tf 

. > 

wo-s  £ 

d 02 

PfiPtf 


&D  &Dt 


<<<< 

Tf  ia  © t> 


d d 

CO  O C to 

; *■>  to  to  +j 

® „ rej  'O  CD 

CD  CD  .3  m 

•r-  -d  > > tf 

itc  W d d d w 


•a  S P ffi  tf  5 
tf  . . . tf 

p<p«!<i< 


<3  < < < < < 


100-  A Jackson  Arnold  Lost  Creek  Huntington  5822  1362  27400  62360  3600 

101- A  A.  J.  Lodge  ? 6406  1858  32200  70130  2200 

103- A  A.  A.  Long  & Bro.  Bridgeport  Huntington  5046  1553  28000  48450  1200 

10 4-  A S.  S.  Farris  Bridgeport  Dekalb  3046  784  22600  29180  2200 

106-A  R.  E.  L.  Stout  Bridgeport  Elk  3274  1376  23800  29630  200 


August,  1916] 


ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


11 


oooooooooooo 
o oooo  oo  o 

o t)icko^  o oo  oo 

lO  N IM  IM  H MM  1— I 


OOOO 
OOOO 
M O O O 
CO  M T-1  M 


O O O O O O 

O O O O O 

Tf  ooo  00  O 

M CO  <M  CO  M 


OOOOOOOOOOOO 

Moo-'tfoooooc'-ascoi-ioo 

OC5CO«C(MinM050b*OOH 

CSt^OMOOCOMt— IOLOO 
MLOcOtMMi-HMMMi-H^T-H 


OOOO 
UO  GO  OO  M 
OON  lO  O 
r-l  OO  O 00 
CO  M CO  1— I 


: o o o 
: m i>  w 
: M 05 
: o o o 
co  co  N 


oooooooooooo  o oooo  oooooo 

oooooooooooo  o oooo  oooooo 

THOMOWON^OO^^OO  O MOOOH  tCifGCOttM 

Nffl^H»lflT|iaOHMT(i  tH  C-IOOO  Ifl  l>  ^ CO  M CO 

COrHMCvJMMMi-HMMMM  »n  CONHH  mnmmmn 


00  OiCOTt-lO  OOsOt-OO 

NCDC5COHI>l>M^u:CO(a  r-i  MlflCOH  Mi-IMOMCO 

M OO  O O M OO  O t—  tC5  CO  O OO  M Ifi  CC  rji  t>  OHIAC5MCO 

i— I 1— I tH  i— I CO  1—1  iH  i— I 1— It— ( t— ! 


OOlOMMO'^'^IOLO'^O 
COH05lflTtM>rtH50lOCOCOCO 
CCOOlrHOOi-HT-it-Ot—"^ 
M CO  i— I M M i— ( M M i— I i— 1 CO  M 


M O Tf  O 
M ^ M O 
CO  CO  M oo 
CO  M M 1— I 


O CO  50  O TJH  T}« 
Tf  t-  OO  ^ 
t>OOOMij'l> 
NCO^COCON 


d d 
2 ° 
bite 
d d 


d d d 

o o o 

d d d 


c.sl 

sHllilill 


O CD  O O O ft  O 


d d 

KKSBSgapK?S 


d d 

o££  o 

S s s 2 

O’St  o 

W fi  P K 


d f;  d 

to  o 

Sh  -M 

o be  o 

S.S  s 

+J  +-> 

m p m 


S'C'Ud'O'Od'd  d 

Soooooood 

doooooood 

cdrtcSiKajajtcajajccajW 

ggd  caddddd 

VIWWZJ  & & pCjtfftO 


d d d 
O O O 


eg  Sh  j-c  Sh 
o d d d 
O d d d 
PQUO 


d 

o 

+■>  -4J  +J  +J  +> 

d d d d 

b a S s d i 

^ h 1H  p ^ 

5 d o *d  d 

d fc  O ^ fc 


2 5,2  S3 


^ d id 

be  be  0 &e  &jd  o 


ra  " ® or  o o o o Si  (j 

^ ^ ^ beja  <j  < § fc  ^ ^ ®j 

^ k"  L • ^ 3 d . . ■ ■ rj 


be 

d 

o 

oo 

^ d 


OOOOi— IMCJ^lOCCt-MN  »t  LO 

'tlfWIOWlOWlOlOlfiOCO  <u 


d 

-J  S 02 


o 


o 

^ . 0>  kJ  00 

ns 

.c 

c 

w cot^oco 

v TfOOH 


d 

o .id  d ft  -*->  Q) 

O n3  >» 

P ® ^ O 

*g,dpQPQ 

3 | ^ . 

o o £ . 

O O^hhp^ 


t <1  <!  <1  <1  <d  <! 


[Bulletin  161 


12 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION 


0> 

§a 

8* 

as 


o o o o 
o o o o 

tCNNOO 

HlONM 


O O O 
o o o 
o o o 

CO  CO  CM 


o o o o 
o o o o 

^ OO  O (M 
cm  if  1-1 


o o o o 

OJOlflffl 
Tjf  o O 05 

LO  T— I o o 

i— I CO  CO  CM 


o o o 

O if  i-H 
05  i-l  CM 
NCOI> 

cm  cm  t- 


o o o o 

O 05  00  o 
O *50  O if 
05  CO  OO  H 

<cq  i— i co  co 


UJ 


3 

O O O O 

o 

o o o 

o o o o 

o 

o 

C/5 

O o o o 

o 

o o o 

o o o o 

o 

o 

1/5 

<50  o CO  O 

if 

if  O 00 

O O CM  CO 

CM 

o 

a 

CM  05  CM  05 

(5- 

oc  CO  o 

00  05  O 05 

1—! 

CO 

“ 

o 

CM  CO  CM  CO 

CM  CM  CO 

H H CO  CM 

CM 

o 

ft 

CO 

C/5 

© 

o 

3 

u 

o 

05  CM  !>•  LC5 

co 

00  00  o 

Tf  co  00  Id 

00 

re 

ft 

if  i— . lO  CM 

c— 

05  1—1  CO 

05  CM  05  CM 

■*f 

*►- 

A 

CCOLO't 

t- 

CO  O*  CO 

OO  co  t-  05 

CM 

3 

cc 

o 

rH 

1— 1 

CM 

CO 

ft 

Pu 

M- 

o 

c 

So 

UJCOLOO 

id 

; OO  i—i 

CM  t~*  i—i  tr— 

Id 

CO 

V) 

HHOCO 

OO 

: uo  cm 

t-  H CO  Id 

CO 

CM 

si 

t- 

CO  C O 05  C— 

'if 

: o oo 

CM  »d  CO  CO 

i-i 

Tf 

_] 

H CO  CM  H 

CO 

: cm  co 

CM  CO  Cl  CM 

CM 

CO 

Z 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

K 

© 

d d 
° 2 

a d 

d ^ 

d 

d 

d 

be 

© 

© 

d § 

o c^.5  s 

2 2 

o d 

j 9 

m 

d 

Q. 

CO 

d 

C 

CQ 

'o 

CQ 

o o d a 

WSKD 

d d 
ft  X * 
<D  O) 

QQ 

>»  <C-  e^» 

6 53 

o 

d 

ffl 

<D 

^3 

3 

O 

0. 

C/2  C/2 
-d  d 

+->  -*->  -*-> 
d a a 

d d d 
IB  M M cd 
d d d 
^02  ^ O 

S S S § 


Oh  Ph  PU 


d d el 
£ £ £ 
°o° 

d d d 
d d d 
bfi  bO  be 
Si  Sh 
O O O 


d d 
o o 
tf 

02  «2 

«J  c« 

o o d d 

fH  t-  d S3 
ca  w 


-t-)  -M  -d  ft 

WMUO 


cu 

be 

d 

’C 

PQ 

>> 

3 

d 

O 


§ - 
5 c 


-O  in 

2g5  o 

d i5  to  d 

d d ? S 

Q M (D 


HE 


CSJ 


3 S 


. . £ a) 


© 05 

a-0 

wfc 


C M 
3 

o ^ 
O H 


bJD 


02  CO  O 


re 


a a 6 

._  X X <D 

— H H O 

Ol 

I 

o C)  CO  CO 
rH  CM 


d d 

?H  t-l 

d d 
ft  ft 
o t> 

J-I  S-. 

d d 

■*•»  HH  hrt  f-i  Sh 

C HH  B)  (1) 

3 . . a a 

o g ^ CQ  M 

C 

31 

O O rl  t>  05 
^ r- 1 r I tH  i— I 


02 

>»  P 

t ^ 

O * 

^ H 


Preston  County 

6 6-  A A.  M.  McMillen  Masontown  Dekalb  3374  697  20000  47230  1400 

67- A  Sanford  Watson  Masontown  Dekalb  4326  2159  26000  47320  1600 

68- A  B.  T.  Gibson  Masontown  Holly  3984  923  24600  45700  1600 

69- A  J.  F.  Copeman  Kingwood  Dekalb  (?)  4746  2146  31000  49230  1400 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  YA.  SOILS 


13 


o o o o 

© o © 

© © 

co  © 


© 

© 

<M 

<M 


© © © 
© © © 
^ © ^ 
CO  CO  CO 


© © 
© © 
CO  r»H 
rH  CO 


©©©©©©©©©©© 
©©©©©©  © © © © 

Tt^COCO^OOOO  -Tf  CO  © ^ 

CO  lO  H NU5HH 


© © © © 

CO  LO  OO  CO 

Tt<  CO  © oo 

r-l  t-  00  © 

^ CO  ^ CO 


© © © © 

oo  © © © 

oo  lo  eo  Tf 

CO  c-  -^  © 

co  lo  co 


© © © © rH 

C-  OO  LO  © © 

rH  CO  © © 

© tJh  t-  IO  t- 

CO  CO  CO  CO  H 


©©©©©©©© 
LO  LO  OO  CO  © OO  © OO 

COH©HH<fOl>Tj< 

00'#C0O©HHH 
H H CO  CO  H ^ CO  CO 


© © © © 

© © © © 

© © Tf  OO 

t—  LO  CO  TjH 

CO  CO  CO  CO 


© © © © 

© © © © 

rf!  © © 
CO  LO  CO 
CO  CO  CO  CO 


© © © © © 

© © © © © 

CO  © CO  © CO 

rH  CO  LO  t-  © 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


©©©©©©©© 
©©©©©©©© 
Hf1  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 
©oort<©TfT#ieo© 
CO  H H ^ CO  CO  CO  CO 


CO  rH 
© © 
CO  c~ 


co 

oo 


CO  H CO 
OOOH 
© rH  CO 


© OO 

© ^ 

OO  rH 


CO  © © 
© LO  OO 
rH  © © 


CO  t—  CO  OO  OO  © CO 
OO  UO  rH  © OO  © 
l>  LO  a H lO  LO 


© © co  co 

t'OOH*  © 

00  © rH  00 

CO  CO  Tf  CO 


CO  OO  © 

CO  © LO  © 

rH  CO  © © 

CO  hJH  CO  CO 


© LO  © rH  © 

© 00  OO  LO  © 

CO  CO  © LO  © 

CO  CO  CO  co  rH 


t-O'^H1©©'^© 
C-*  LO  CO  © rH  © © 
OIOOO©©©^ 
CO  rH  CO  CO  H CO  rH  CO 


'O 

d 

_d 

'o 

Jr 


2 d2 

s-. 

d 

£2 

o 

a 

d d 
2 2 

d & d 
js!  02  Ld 

o a a5 

,d 

09 

a 

'd 

<x> 

+-> 

09 

0)  ^ 

m m 
O o 

QPQ 

P 

Q 

^ fa 

PP 

a a 
o o 


3 2 *.2.3,3 .2  . 


W) 

a 

fit 


-g  2 


d d 
'O  £ 2 

o<< 

12  2 

d Lh  tn 

■h  a)  a) 
W E-i  E-1 


+->  a -i-> 

bfl  o W) 
d g d 

g ® S 
fa  fa 


> > 

U ^1 

0>  <p 

H->  HH> 

d d 

<d  <d 
OO 


222%^  a; 

’>  > > s2  cj  *r?  *d  d ">  .2  *d 

.2 .2 .2  £ o ® © & .2  -g  © 
> > add  d ^ 
cS83ejej2©®2(4»5® 
QpQfagfqpq^Q^pq 


c<;<i 


2 2 

s 50 


o 


o ° 


d 

tr  2 

2 g 

xi  d d 
+5  ffi  P 

| Spio 
| dfeg 

CO  P LO 

H ^ ^ 


O 
_ d 

a5 

£ Hjfa 

<u 

re  co  co 


o o 

«u  Q) 
Jh 


alias.. 

g g § © 5 d o 


(h 

a? 

XU 


OOP^  PfflCQ  a> 

' . • . • CQ  V 

f-1  . . • fH  % 


£ 

3 
O 

O 

o tPoo©©coco^cotPcoP 

^ LO  © © © C~-  tH-  © © 


Wayne  County,  Ohio 

115-A  Ohio  Exp.  Sta.  Wooster,  Ohio  Volusia  1775  664  28600 


Limestone 

Owner  of  Farm  Postoffice  County  Nitrogen  Phosphorus  Potassium  Carbon  Requirem’t 


14 


W.  VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


o o o 
o 

GO 

C\| 


ooooooooooooooooooooooo 

ooooooooooooooooooooooo 

NHCOMHHHNIMN 


o o o 

tH  Cd  l> 
O HCS 
CO  o o 
LO  CO  CO 


O t— I o o o o o o o oooooooooooooo 

OOOTPIXJOOOlOlflCONMNOOHTfHCJ^ClGOOOOO 

OJOOHCONNlO^NCOIM^CONHCiOHOOOHt' 

Wt-CJCOWO(»OMt-t>C5HOOHiNCOCOMHNflJt)0 

«HNNCq<Mr(t«ieO',t'^'^'^^INCOTt(iacONNNN 


O O O 

o o o 

ONN 
OOOH 
T*  Tfl  CO 


ooooooooooooooooooooooo 

ooooooooooooooooooooooo 

^NOOO®^ONOOOOT#NOTfNOONOOtOOO 

OOtCOO®H(COO®HOtOrU>«t-NL'>NW(NCONlfl 

WNHNHINHHHNNMNNHNNCqNNlMMN 


LO  CO  LO 
CO  LO  i— I 


OOOHOOHOCOCO<Mt'-OCOCOLOO<X>OOCsqOC'3'^CO 
OS  OO  OS  H <M  t— I LO  00  O O LO  Tf  O CO  t~*  O CO  rH  O OO  OO  OO  LO 
(DCCOOI>TttNt'^<05CHH<MHCOI>(MMC5LCTfh<D 

(Mcq-1  ■ — ■ — ■ 


O rf  o 

O «o 

O O O 

CO  CO  CO 


ffiNOOO«|TtiNN^®tOONOOlOCCNTjHlM!CO 

CCt'lfiH^NWOlXN^l'-'^NlCOOO^OM^n 

®NONOHOfflCOMI>OOH10l>HC)HO)nOC' 

HNNHNMNNCCrtc^CO'^T-lM't'tMHlMCOiN 


<P  0) 

x ra  x 

O o o 

pop 

pq  ^ PQ 


2 "o  2 


<3 

bJD  o 


S3a><l>a>s3bS3Si3 

O-H-H'HOOOOO 


S t,  el  PS 

o a o o 

cq  g w.  m 

’2  ,0  ’£ 

£ Sisjs 


■o  § 
o 5 
o 


^^^^fcs-sfcfcfoP-iP-lPLHPHp-lOffipqKWl^PH 


o -r 

oo  £ 
’£  c3 
Ph  fl 
ctf  c3 

ffi  w 


<p  o 

PP  o 


£ 

o 

Is 

So  .2 
% > 
3 03 


a)  o 

co 

pH 

CD 

+J 

O 

CO 


S'? 

S3  ® 

W)  O 

|& 


a a 

S3  £ £’2'2 


S S 5 1 S a ^ 
® 5 ^ s M 

a3  O <3 


cs  O « O C3  ^ -s  .3  iD2  6^5  O O £ 

P$  O O g S § W W H § J pq  J J £ 


X X g rH 

£ | w>  ^ 1 3 

dog5£.|gg| 

*§  §2  S 

/-n  /-\  /-*>  f rH 


co  pq  o 


Q>  a> 

a-g 
B s 
S s 

03  2; 


S3 

o 

CO 

pH 

0)  ^ 

-m  (3 

gg| 

fc»« 

Sfe  a 

o . £ 


£ 

o <)  <1 

i:  ^tOH 

00  th 


CO 


p,  <j  . p,  < £ ^ d Pq  fa  p fa  § <j  £ ^ ^ ® ® fa  u 


C^-  <>• 

re 

NOOCOONOOHWCDNOONTtiNOHNMt'^t' 

HHMWlflOffl®50®t>C'C'OOffiffiffiffiC!00 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


15 


o o 
o o 

C£5  OC 


o o o o o 

o o o o 

''f  o o cq 

CO  Cvl  C5 


ooooooooooo 
o o o o o o o 

O 00  O ® Cq  cq 

rH  (M  1— I CO  <M  rH 


oooooooooo 
ooooo  o oo 

M Tf  00  N OO  COM 

H CO  H H OO  <M  HN 


O O 
OO  OS 
U3  Tjn 
O OS 
CO  CO 


ooooo 

ONOSlflM 
^ CO  CO  OS  CO 
O CO  UO  CO  OS 
TfH  eo  Cq  cq  CO 


ooooooooooo 

LOMi-HOOCOCOLOt-IOSOOCO 
HCDO^OCOOlHN^ia 
t>CJNU5COHCOCCI>OCO 
Cq  t— I <M  i— t CO  Cq  Cq  <M  CO  00  Cq 


OOOOOOOOOO 

C-OOHCOLOt>*COC~OSCO 

HNNOOOOSOOl^N 

tO^MOHHNCDNWO 

<NCOHM«NHCOhN 


o o 
o o 

CO  <M 
CO  o 
rH  Cq 


OOOOO 

ooooo 

O O OO  N 00 
Cq  CO  t>*  CO  CO 
iM  M r-  N (M 


OOOOOOOOOOO 

OOOOOOOOOOO 

ocexoooccoocooa^ 

HOMMff.OjOOHifljqt' 

lOThMUO^^OCCOlOJO 


oooooooooo 

oooooooooo 

(MCJCOffilMif^^CO^ 

HMOCDOOSHWN^ 

MCOi-H»OCOi-H(MCOMr-l 


■*M  O 05  l>  CO  OS  CO  MHCOOCONt-N^C-OS 

CO  CO  H 05  o « i>  hmmmcooohnoihoo 

Tf  CO  <N  05  l>  00  05  NCJDiflOCMOSCOCOHN 

t— I r-i  r-H  r~i  CO  ’H  i— 1 i-H  i-H  tH  t*H 


CO  00  O CO  05  05  -f  t-  O)  CO 
O^MCONCOIOCO^CO 
OOHOOOlOOWHOlfl 
l— I Cq  T—l  -rH 


asO'cj’TiH'cji  co  oo  oi  h us  oi  co  oc  co  m 

(MOO  OS  00  CO  l—  OOlO^OOOOlOOSlflOOOOOO 

cq  CO  CO  N lO  MM  CO'  COTfOMi-IMlO'tf'OOO 

<M  co  co  co  cq  cm  cc  cq  cq  h cq  cq  cq  cq  cq  cq  co  cq 


CSLOt'-COCq-'fUO'^LO''*' 
05  00COCSWC005'V^CO 

cqcoifloocoHococct- 

WCOHCqoSCqH^HH 


cd 

£ ij 

cd  o 

s >» 

cd  cd 

fa  fa 


ugh 
S5t 
* b 


05 

a» 

;Sa>a>a><Da>a)a>a>a5s-i 

H^pqpQpqpQpqpqpqpqpQO 


cd 

,d  cd  c 

g 05  ^5  3 ^ Ov 

g o'g'S  g-g 

M^cdcd^cdcd^uH1^ 


d 

o 

-t-> 

in 

a> 

.d  33 

OQ 


o ^ 

-M 

j?  go 
3 | -M 
SS8 


CD 

»^o 

o » 
2 a> 

S ho 

t-4  13 

cd 


fa  fa  J fa  ffi 


d 

£ 

O bfl 

•+J  £_, 

“ d 

V,  & 

33  .3 
ft-tj 
05  b 
fa  « 

m g 


d d 
tn£ 


« ho  ho 

^ S 3 d ^ d £ 

■>  fa  fa  fa  C/5  fa  05 

C/5  CO  CO  'O  Cfl  fa 

bo  hJ  hJ  3h  3 Ts 
docdcdjrtcd^cd^ 


3 

fa 

cd  2 

' £ 

CD 

J 


t>  !> 

Sh  S3 
<X>  05 


cd  52 
d d 


fa  fa 

o o 
o o 
£ £ 

02  02  ^ 05  - 

d pj  d r fa 

cd  05  05  o Ph  o 

O > > H .33 

o cd  cd  :H.  -u  3 


s g 

ood^fafatf^fad 


d 

o u 

t ® 

d «J 

J 05 

.fa 

' CQ 


<5  < 


3 to  “ W d 
o ft  Q)  ^ O 
M .rt  m 05  4-5 

sis!81 

O £ % fc  H 


O f->  M U 
U)  W Q5  *3  05 
05  33  <d  33  o, 


3 33! 


° bx  hi  S Is© 


ai  ^ 33  0)33  §05 

i ^SoS 3“2a| 


pq  c !- 

►>  CO  • hk1  . > .o^od  . fn  f-i  d5  05  « ^ k 

h -2 


03 

Ofa 

cd  . 

g g 

CQ  fa 


45 

w ^ ^ 
U3  lAi  OO  OS  CO 
— HCSC5CSO 

Uj  r-H 


j_  O.  O*  O*  c^'  O'  O* 

m udT^coobds<Mcc'4<c>-obt>- 
cqcqcqcqo5  05  05coco^ 


05 

d3  5 

s a 

b " 


>>  d n3 
M 05  Cd  0)  fa  Hi 
'£  ® ^ ho  &h  ed  ^ 

*OO.H 

o d cd  o o d jd 


w(\o^om;S:§i§? 


• d . cd  *3 


Sample  Limestone 

Number  Owner  of  Farm  Postoffice  County  Nitrogen  Phosphorus  Potassium  Carbon  Requirem  t 


16 


W.  VA.  AGR’Li  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


o o 
o o 

O 00 
<M  tH 


ooooooooooo 

O OOOOOOOO 

O OOOOt^MOOOO^MN 

00 


o © o o 
o o o o 

^ ^ N 

NNHIO 


O O 
<M  t- 
O C~ 
OO 

lH  CO 


OOOOOOOO 

Hfl>»l00001000 

OOSCOHtD^OCO 

t-^<r^eo<©OH 

©WCOHCOHM^ 


: o o 
: co  lo 
: co  -x* 
: cm  oo 
: co 


o o o o 
oo  co  o 
co  to  oo  t- 

NtCMH 
N H <N  CO 


OO  o OOOOOOOOOOO 

OO  O ooooooooooo 

H O0  CO  OON’CNlNCC'tHO^O 

or-  -xjh  oocj^oo-^TtHNt-iflt-oo 

t— I CM  CM  COHNHHCOMNNNN 


o o o o 
o o o o 

CD  O M O 
lH  ID  O 

cm  cm  cm  co 


LO  CD 
r-l  o 
t-  00 


oo-’fHcqt'-oot'-Oicqoqco 

■CCODMlflHlflH^OlO 
CD  OO  O l>  xl'  D lO  H ffq  M Ifl 


■xf  -xf  CO  CM 
CO  t>  t»  H 
OOOffit- 


OO  -X*H  N®U50xh0lA(ex(tW«D  Lfi  cm  o xri  CD 

o-xn  00  HHDlfiNt'I'XfiMCOxt’  C—  Ifi  C-  xji  rH 

OO  CM  Oi  ffiOOlOhaffiCOMOCO  CO  i— i CO  H CO 

H CO  CO  ICNHrHdHlMM'ClOlO  iH  W r-i  (M  CO 


<v 

d be 
§2 
I £ 

rt 

d O 


£ Cl  0 
o o o 
in  in  in 


b « ^ C 

o Soo 

X in  to  'C  "d 
in  O^^OOO 


%->  u u 
u u t-* 

cd  c$ 


G fi  es 
o o o 
m in  in 
XXX 
o o o 
b b cS 

1-5  1-5  t-3  ^ 


c3 


a. 2 

2 s 

in  tD 
a> 

* tl  4-5 


2 ® fl 

bjD  ^ fi  & _ _ „ 

Vi  rt  H 2 ^ ^ 2 ^ ^ O 

s e s fe I a* 

b CP  C P d .S  CD  03  S 

£ ww^fflgppppp 


X X +J 
® ® t. 


g T3  TP  2 

a § § g 

^ ^ ^ <4 

CC  CD  CD  ^ 

^ § s ^ 

o > > 
g e$  cS 

O P P P 


P fl 

+;  S c« 
o m a 
o _g  ® 

W o ° 

..  I?U 
<u 

T 6K 

<l)  Q) 

<o  Ot-J 

| <:<: 
o o co 

-|-  1— I T— I 

-L  l—C  T— I 


o)  H 


m 


& „ 2 05 
S'8 

©e*-53®^©Hw) 


'O 
o 
o 

^CD03Vhp^®,C|!5  b 
(D+j-j-j  qj  & ,cj  m-i-h  Q)  Sh 

■c P“m^kwm^3 gS 
» Sdd^4dN'SQ|<i 

o 

O) 

c 


3 OCTSOCMCOCOOCOOOOCO 
xji  x}*  LO  CO  CD  t—  OO  00  OO  O O 


?&g,2 


£ S 

O © 


I Saga 


cn  <1  •*;  <J  <J  <3  <|J 


W)^  <1  § 
>fc0h 


H CO  oo 
LO  ID  lb  t— 


9 6- A L.  N.  Beatty  Mannington  Marion  3444  1226  32600  30470  3800 

102-A  Chas.  Kalt  Crow  Summit  Jackson  2430  862  24800  16180  1800 


August,  1916] 


ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


17 


o o o 
o o o 

N 00 

M lO  H 


OOOOOOOO 
O O O O O O 

CM  fflTfO  OO  C© 

LO  N CO  LO  CO  H 


O O O O 
O O O O 
OO  O Tf  O 

IM  CO  N cq 


o o o 
o o 
o o 

CO  <M 


o o o 

LO  OO  1—1 
CO  LO 


OOOOOOOO 

ONOLONIOOH 

OCOOMCCNffilM 

LOHHXCCt'ON 

NINNhMCOIMCO 


o o 

CO  <x> 
CO  CO 


o o o 

O 1-H  T-l 
rf  OO  00 
OO  C—  LO 


o o o 
o o o 

MOO© 
LO  00 
NOTH 


OOOOOOOO 

OOOOOOOO 

OOOOO'tfOOOOO 

i>c50©^ioaio 

CO^COCOCOIMCO-^ 


o o o o 
o o o o 

O ZD  OO 
MU5LO^ 

oq  co  co 


o o o 
o o o 

O O LO 
CO  LO  CO 
MMN 


CO  00  LO 
O O CO 
HHOC 


O 00  o 
LO  H ^ 
O M Lfi 


H lO  © 
© MCO 


<X>  i-H  O O 
cq  OO  N M 

cqnoio 


oocq© 
o co 
cq  oo© 

CM  CO 


O O 
00  t-H  1-H 
© Cl  CM 
CM  CO  CO 


HMiot>cq®ocq 
LO  OC  LO  tr—  O 00  CO  o 
LOitt-OOOOt-H 
CM  CM  tH  CM  CM  CM  i— I -r|H 


O © © 
CO  lO  H4  l> 
OS  « t>  © 
CM  CM  CM  "if 


CO  ^ 
CM  CM  OO 
Hi  OO  N 
CO  l—l  CO 


-d  2 
o o £ 
O O b 


- o 5 

'sias-s 

0^00 


sgo 

to  S-Q 

° H ^ ° V 2 S 


M fH  S C 
•HOOO 

£3  i’*  '§ 


a g 

as  —i  o 

S|S 

0>  -2  o 

■r*  & d 

Ph  O h 


^ ft 
m m Q* 

’>  '>  3 

o3  d jZ 

OPPp 


fa  W) 
O Jh 

° g 

fa 

£ VI 


d 

fa  ctf 
g < W 
<3  o 

^ rCS3  4=2  S_  -O 

l>  S-,  fa 

ctf  d 3 © 


0> 


fl  • 


QOfafafaH<Jfa 


ft 

ft 

O 

g a § x 
a <x>  a & 

«J  OB  .2  fa 

PS 

O 

a 

fa 

fa  O cd  O 

% 

fa 

< fa  fa  O 

be 

• r— I fa 

fa  O 
O 
£ 


ctf 


Pi 
0) 
> 
o3 

fflUK 


_ ® fl 

S|E3 

6«n 


li 


CO 


1—1  ^ h 5 2 ^ d 

<x>  _ Si  i=l  'tr’  ©r  s 

<X>  fa  O cb  £ £>fa  S 

^ ^ 0)  O r®  fa 

O^P  jH  © N 

. o r_-  . . ...  a p* 

o ^ 


< . ^ fa"  fa  ® ° 


Sh 


• a 


fa  d 


rt  S 
a s 

Sm  2 
Cd  ^ 


^ fa  £ <D 


ffl 

. o 

fa  fa  fa 


» <<<< 
<U  i— | -rf  H Cl 
^ i-H  OO  OO 


<D 

S-.  o 
2 £ 
“ ® fa 
fa  >» 

- .fa<j 

a>  CQ 

o>fafa£ 

c 


V <1  <J  < 

-C  ©©CO 
> t-  00 


94-A  Dr.  Keefer  Belleville  Wood  3496  1563  26200  31480  1400 

111-A  Follansbee  Brooke  1940  1550  21600  3600 


18 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  1G1 


HISTORY  OF  SOIL  SAMPLES. 

1-A — Discard*,  10.70%.  Hillside  noth  of  barn;  cleared 
40  to  50  years ; soil,  light  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rolling 
highland ; drainage,  natural ; bluegrass  predominates  in  pas- 
ture ; no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime,  no  legumes 
grown ; red  clover  does  fairly  well ; sorrel  is  principal  weed ; 
soil  varied  more  or  less  on  side  of  hill  and  resulting  sample 
was  a composite  representing  several  phases  of  this  type 
of  soil. 


2- A. — No  discard.  (Plot  18)  Soil,  yellowish;  level;  taken 
from  plot  which  has  received  no  fertilizer  or  lime  treatment 
for  some  time. 

3- A. — Discard,  2.13%.  Hickory,  poplar,  and  sycamore 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  approximately  75  years ; soil, 
chocolate ; subsoil,  light  brown ; level  overflow ; drainage, 
natural ; meadow  since  clearing,  2 tons  per  acre ; timothy  and 
orchard  grass  predominate;  fed  over  in  winter;  no  manure 
applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; red  clover  with  the  grass ; red 
clover  apparently  does  well ; yarrow,  broad  and  narrow  plan- 
tain, the  principal  weeds ; limestone  outcrops  on  hillside 
around  flat. 

4- A. — Discard,  7.15%.  Top  of  hill  back  of  barn;  cleared 
one  year  ; soil,  light  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish  ; rolling  highland  ; 
drainage,  natural ; corn,  50  bushels  per  acre ; no  manure  ap- 
plied, no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; do  not  know 
whether  red  clover  does  well  or  not;  some  sorrel.  This  rep- 
resents new  soil. 

5- A. — Discard  3.17%.  Between  house  and  highway; 
white  oak,  hickory,  walnut,  and  locust  originally  grew  on 
land ; cleared  100  years ; soil,  chocolate ; subsoil,  dark  red ; 
rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; corn  each  summer ; rye 
each  winter  until  this  year  (pasture)  ; 38  bushels  of  corn  per 
acre;  7 tons  manure  per  acre  each  3 years;  150  pounds  of  acid 
phosphate  each  year;  1 ton  burned  lime  12  years  ago;  hog 
weed,  morning  glory,  Jamestown  weed,  the  principal  weeds; 
the  field  contains  only  about  1J4  acres  but  the  rotation  of 
corn  and  rye  each  year  for  thirty  years  makes  it  interesting. 
Field  is  just  outside  the  corporation  limits  of  Shepherdstown. 


•The  discard  represents  the  particles  of  shale  and  rock  which  would  not  pass  a 
2-mm.  sieve.  This  part  was  separated  from  the  sample  before  analysis  was  made. 


-August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


19 


6- A. — Discard,  227%.  Northeast  of  dwelling;  beech, 
hickory,  and  sugar  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  7 5 years; 
soil,  chocolate;  subsoil,  chocolate  to  yellow;  level  terrace; 
drainage,  natural;  meadow  9/10  of  time;  2 tons  of  hay  per 
acre ; timothy  and  red  top  predominate ; 12  tons  manure  ap- 
plied once  in  4 years ; 300  pounds  mixed  goods  applied  4 
years  ago;  no  lime;  no  legumes  grown;  very  few  red  clover 
plants  present ; sedge,  cinquefoil,  and  blue  devil,  the  principal 
weeds;  about  fifteen  acres  level  land  in  field  about  100  yards 
northeast  of  railroad  depot. 

7- A. — Discard,  3.72%.  Along  road  west  of  cross  roads; 
cleared  75  years;  soil,  light  gray;  subsoil,  darker;  level  ter- 
race; drainage,  natural;  corn,  oats,  wheat,  and  hay;  some  ma- 
nure applied ; red  clover  does  not  do  very  well ; sorrel,  the 
principal  weed. 

8- A. — Discard,  2.36%.  Orchard  back  of  barn;  cleared  35 
years ; soil,  red ; subsoil,  red ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  nat- 
ural ; clover  has  been  grown ; red  clover  does  fairly  well ; sorrel, 
the  principal  weed. 

9- A. — Discard,  2.38%.  North  of  barn;  cleared  50  years; 
soil,  light  yellow ; subsoil,  darker  yellow ; rolling  highland ; 
level  area  in  rolling  field;  drainage,  natural;  rotation  of  oats, 
wheat  and  clover ; manure  applied  every  3 or  4 years ; some 
fertilizer  applied  for  wheat ; red  clover  grown ; does  fairly 
well. 

10- A. — Discard,  8.41%,  Across  road  from  barn;  cleared 
20  years ; soil,  light  yellow ; subsoil,  yellowish ; level  highland 
terrace ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover 
and  timothy;  manure  applied  occasionally;  some  fertilizer; 
some  hydrated  lime ; red  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  fairly 
well ; considerable  sorrel. 

11- A. — Discard,  .78%.  Near  bridge  southeast  of  farm; 
cleared  20  to  30  years ; soil,  reddish  ; subsoil,  reddish ; level 
terrace ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  tomatoes,  wheat  and 
clover;  mixed  fertilizer  applied;  some  lime;  red  clover  grown; 
red  clover  does  fairly  well. 

12- A. — Discard,  .94%.  Terrace  back  of  orchard;  cleared 
50  years;  soil,  light  gray;  rolling  terrace;  drainage,  natural; 
■corn  and  hay  grown ; some  clover  grown ; sorrel  and  poverty 
grass,  the  principal  weeds. 

13- A. — Discard,  15.8%.  Across  road  from  schoolhouse; 
cleared  50  years ; soil,  light  gray ; level  terrace ; drainage,  nat- 


20 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


ural  and  some  artificial ; land  mostly  in  meadow,  now  in  cow- 
peas;  some  fertilizer  applied;  cowpeas  grown;  corresponding 
land  not  tile  drained  shows  very  poor  meadows  full  of  sorrel, 
broomsedge,  etc. 

14- A. — Discard,  4.44%.  Center  of  farm;  oak,  cherry  and 
some  poplar  originally  grew  on  land  ; cleared  100  to  125  years; 
rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  3 years ; corn, 
oats,  clover  and  potatoes ; yield,  oats  25  bushels,  corn  60  bush- 
els, clover  2 tons,  potatoes  200  bushels ; some  manure  applied 
each  three  years ; 200  pounds  acid  phosphate  on  all  except 
potatoes;  1600  pounds  home  mixed;  no  lime;  clover  grown; 
red  clover  does  fairly  well;  joint  grass  and  foxtail,  the  prin- 
cipal weeds. 

15- A. — Discard,  3.65%.  South  of  house  along  road;  oak 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  over  100  years ; soil,  light 
brown;  subsoil,  dark  yellow  mottled;  nearly  level  terrace; 
drainage,  natural;  meadow,  one  crop  of  corn  15  years  ago; 
about  one  ton  per  acre ; timothy  predominates ; no  red  clover 
sown ; moss,  sedge,  running  briers,  cinquefoil,  and  yarrow,  the 
principal  weeds. 

16- A. — Discard,  1.55%.  Experiment  Station  plots;  soil, 
light  yellow ; level  highland ; drainage,  natural  and  artificial ; 
variety  of  crops  grown ; plot  21  ; no  manure  applied ; no  fer- 
tilizer ; no  lime ; red  clover  does  not  do  well ; sorrel  and  yel- 
low trefoil,  the  principal  weeds. 

17- A.— Discard,  20.39%.  Pine  knob;  cleared  5 years ; soil, 
light  brown;  subsoil,  yellowish  brown;  rolling  highland; 
drainage,  natural ; orchard ; crimson  clover  grown ; sorrel,  the 
principal  weed ; land  cleared  and  farmed  years  ago  but  al- 
lowed to  run  wild  again. 

18- A.— -Discard,  2.05%.  Orchard  on  hill  back  of  house; 
cleared  25  to  30  years ; soil,  red ; subsoil,  red ; drainage,  natur- 
al, not  very  good;  orchard  sown  in  clover;  no  manure  applied; 
no  lime ; red  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well. 

19- A. — Discard,  26.41%.  Oak  land;  cleared  5 years;  soil, 
dark  gray ; subsoil,  light  gray ; rolling  highland ; orchard ; 
crimson  clover  grown ; sorrel,  the  principal  weed ; cleared 
from  forest  years  before  but  covered  with  second  growth  and 
this  cleared  off  about  5 years ; drainage,  natural. 

20- A. — Discard,  80.34%.  Recently  cleared  orchard  land. 

21- A. — Discard,  2.57%.  Northeast  of  barn,  second  field; 
cleared  many  years ; soil,  light  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish ; roll- 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


21 


ing  highland  or  second  terrace ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of 
corn,  wheat,  hay  and  tobacco;  very  little  manure  applied; 
very  little  fertilizer ; no  lime ; red  clover  very  poor ; sorrel,  the 
principal  weed ; very  poor  growth  of  grass. 

22- A. — Discard,  .84%.  South  of  Elmwood  church;  clear- 
ed 50  years ; soil,  grayish ; subsoil,  grayish ; level  terrace ; 
drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover  and  to- 
bacco ; some  manure  applied ; red  clover  grown ; red  clover 
does  fairly  well. 

23-  A. — Discard,  1.40%.  Cleared  many  years;  no  rotation 
practiced ; yield  of  crops  not  known ; last  potatoes  no  good ; 
do  not  know  what  grasses  predominate;  no  fertilizer  applied; 
no  lime ; some  white  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  not  do 
well;  milkweed,  the  principal  weed. 

24- A. — Discard,  41.74%.  Cleared  over  50  years;  Apple 
Pie  Ridge;  soil,  yellow;  subsoil,  yellow;  rolling  highland; 
drainage  natural ; nothing  but  orchard ; 3-year  average,  79 
barrels  apples ; 400  pounds  yearly  of  4-10-8  fertilizer ; no  lime ; 
no  legumes ; red  clover  would  do  well  if  given  a chance ; cheat 
grass,  the  principal  weed;  a very  profitable  orchard. 

25- A. — Discard,  32.28%.  On  top  of  ridge;  cleared  over 
50  years ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; nothing  but  or- 
chard cultivation ; 3-year  average,  79  barrels  apples  per  acre ; 
400  pounds  yearly  of  4-10-8  fertilizer;  no  legumes  grown; 
never  tried  red  clover;  cheat  grass  the  principal  weed;  a 
good  yielder  of  apples. 

26- A. — Discard,  33.33%.  Center  of  farm;  cleared  over 
50  years ; soil,  red ; subsoil,  red ; rolling  highland ; drainage, 
natural ; cover  crops  in  fall ; peaches  good,  apples  only  fair, 
about  40  barrels  per  acre;  4-10-7  fertilizer  and  lime  applied 
occasionally;  crimson  clover  and  cowpeas  grown;  never  tried 
red  clover;  good  soil  for  peaches  if  nitrogen  is  added;  a little 
light  for  apples. 

27- A. — Discard,  46.78%.  Cleared  only  10  years;  soil, 
yellow ; subsoil,  yellow ; level ; drainage,  natural ; cowpeas 
and  soybeans  grown;  orchard;  not  bearing;  400  pounds  4-8-7 
fertilizer  applied  now  and  then ; yellow  shale  soil,  naturally 
poor;  trees  show  neglect  soon;  manures  and  clovers  help 
considerably. 

28- A. — Discard,  21.98%.  Soil,  brown;  subsoil,  brown; 
Apple  Pie  Ridge ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; 3-year 
average,  79  barrels  per  acre ; 400  pounds  4-8-7  fertilizer 


22 


W.  VA.AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


yearly;  cover  crops  10  year  ago;  cheat  grass,  the  principal 
weed ; heavy  growth  of  cheat  grass  plowed  under  each  year. 

29- A. — Discard,  11.06%.  Cleared  75  years;  soil,  yellow- 
ish brown ; subsoil,  yellow  to  brown ; rolling  highland ; 
drainage,  natural;  corn  grown  only  when  orchard  is  young; 
orchard  not  bearing;  300  pounds  4-10-8  fertilizer  applied  oc- 
casionally ; some  clover  grown ; orchard  about  10  years ; not 
taking  inter-crops  off  any  more ; good  soil ; outcrops  of 
limestone. 

30- A. — Discard,  52.30%.  Cleared  50  years;  soil,  yellow; 
subsoil,  yellow ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; rotation 
of  corn,  oats  and  wheat;  low  yield;  very  little  manure  ap- 
plied; 200  pounds  0-8-3  fertilizer  applied  occasionally;  ground 
poor,  trees  doing  poorly. 

31- A. — Discard,  20.31%.  Soil,  yellow;  subsoil,  yellow; 
level  overflow ; drainage,  natural ; good  apple  yield,  60  barrels 
per  acre;  light  applications  of  manure;  just  out  of  soapstone 
area ; raising  good  crops. 

32- A. — Discard,  17.39%.  Cleared  50  years;  soil,  brown  to 
black ; subsoil,  brown ; level ; no  rotation  practiced ; 68  barrels 
apples  per  acre;  400  pounds  2-10-8  fertilizer  yearly;  crimson 
clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well ; good  soil ; high-producing 
orchards ; clovers  always  plowed  under. 

33- A. — Discard,  40.23%.  Cleared  50  years;  soil,  yellow- 
ish brown ; subsoil,  yellow ; drainage,  natural ; good  yield ; 
manure  occasionally  applied  about  weak  trees ; 300  to  400 
pounds  4-10-8  fertilizer  when  cropped;  crimson  clover  grown; 
red  clover  does  well ; a good  orchard  on  Apple  Pie  Ridge, 
well  taken  care  of. 

34- A. — Discard,  59.04%.  Pine  originally  grew  on  land; 
cleared  40  years  or  more ; soil,  blue  to  gray ; subsoil,  bluish 
gray ; (black  slate)  ; drainage,  natural ; yield  low,  about  30 
barrels  apples ; occasionally  200  pounds  4-8-10  fertilizer  ap- 
plied ; red  clover  does  well ; poor  soil ; manures  and  clovers 
help  wonderfully. 

35- A. — Discard,  16.08%.  Pine  originally  grew  on  land; 
cleared  30  years  or  more;  soil,  yellow  to  bluish;  subsoil,  yel- 
low and  black  slate;  rolling  terrace;  drainage,  natural;  yield 
not  very  high;  fertilizer  applied  occasionally;  crimson  clover 
grown ; red  clover  does  well. 


August,  1916] 


ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


23 


36- A. — Discard,  41.12%.  Cleared  40  years  or  more;  soil, 
yellow  to  brown;  subsoil,  yellow;  Apple  Pie  Ridge;  rolling 
highland  ; yield  high,  70  barrels ; manure  occasionally  about 
trees;  4-10-8  fertilizer  when  crop  is  present;  crimson  clover 
grown ; red  clover  does  well ; good  soil ; a good  orchard  well 
taken  care  of. 

37- A. — Discard,  7.07%.  Cleared  40  years;  soil,  yellowish 
brown  ; subsoil,  yellow ; level ; drainage,  natural ; clean  culti- 
vation now;  not  bearing;  manure  and  4-10-8  fertilizer  occa- 
sionally applied ; some  crimson  clover  grown ; red  clover  does 
well. 


38- A. — Discard,  11.19%.  Cleared  40  years  at  least;  soil, 
brown;  subsoil,  brown  to  yellow;  rolling  terrace;  drainage, 
natural ; yield  good,  70  barrels  average ; manure  applied  oc- 
casionally; 500  pounds  4-10-8  fertilizer  applied  yearly;  burned 
lime  applied  1-10  years;  crimson  clover  grown;  red  clover 
does  well ; good  orchard ; good  management ; cheat  grass ; 
outcrop  of  limestone. 

39- A. — Discard,  1.32%.  South  of  house;  oak  land;  clear- 
ed 80  years;  soil,  chocolate;  subsoil,  yellowish;  rolling  high- 
land; drainage,  natural;  yield  rather  low  but  getting  better; 
no  manure  applied;  fertilized  heavily  last  few  years;  no  lime; 
red  clover  grown ; sorrel,  the  principal  weed ; probably  in 
tobacco  for  years  but  for  last  20  years  corn,  buckwheat,  timo- 
thy and  clover. 

40- A. — Sugar  and  black  walnut  originally  grew  on  land ; 
cleared  65  to  70  years ; soil,  black ; subsoil,  gray ; level,  first 
bottom ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn,  oats,  clover  and 
timothy ; no  manure  applied ; no  fertilizer ; no  lime ; clover 
grown ; red  clover  does  well ; present  ownership  18  years ; 
previous  to  this  land  had  been  poorly  farmed. 

41- A. — Discard.  A typical  black  sand. 

42- A. — West  of  road;  cleared  a great  many  years;  soil, 
dark  red ; subsoil,  red ; rolling  highland ; rotation  of  corn, 
wheat  and  hay;  little  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no  lime; 
clover  grown ; soil  covered  with  fragments  of  limestone ; at 
present  land  is  in  alfalfa. 

43- A. — Southwest  of  barn ; oak,  sugar,  beech  and  poplar 
originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  75  or  80  years;  soil,  choco- 
late; level  terrace;  needs  drainage;  rotation  of  corn,  wheat 
and  timothy ; 40  or  50  bushels  corn ; several  applications  of  ma- 


24 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


nure ; no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  once  in  cowpeas,  once  in  beans; 
clover  formerly  did  well,  though  not  now ; pea  vines,  the  prin- 
cipal weeds. 

44- A. — South  of  house ; oak  and  maple  originally  grew 
on  land ; cleared  40  to  50  years ; soil,  dark  gray ; subsoil,  mot- 
tled ; level  bottom  swamp ; mostly  grass,  corn  years  ago ; no 
manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  typical  “Meadows” 
from  Little  Clear  Creek. 

45- A. — Practically  same  as  44-A  from  wet  undrained  bot- 
tom meadow  land. 

46- A. — West  of  barn;  oak  and  chestnut  originally  grew 
on  land;  cleared  75  years;  soil,  chocolate;  subsoil,  dark 
brown ; level  highland ; rotation  of  corn,  oats,  wheat  and  hay ; 
manure  applied  occasionally;  acid  phosphate  10-12  years; 
no  lime ; red  clover  grown ; typical  soapstone  land. 

47- A. — South  of  barn ; oak,  poplar  and  walnut  originally 
grew  on  land;  cleared  75  years;  soil,  dark  gray;  subsoil,  light 
gray ; mostly  pasture  for  some  time ; some  manure  applied ; 
no  fertilizer ; no  lime ; red  clover  grown.  This  should  be  ty- 
pical limestone  soil. 

48- A. — Lower  end  of  Buffington  Island.  This  sample 
was  taken  from  side  of  exposed  strata  along  river  shore  where 
river  had  cut  away  into  the  bank. 

49- A. — Cottonwood  and  sycamore  originally  grew  on 
land;  cleared  75  years  or  more;  soil,  black;  subsoil,  dark 
brown ; level  overflow ; drainage,  natural ; all  corn,  occasion- 
ally watermelons;  60  to  65  bushels  per  acre;  no  manure  ap- 
plied ; no  fertilizer ; no  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; red  clover 
does  well ; smartweed  and  pigweed,  the  principal  weeds ; very 
good  corn  land ; potatoes  do  not  do  particularly  well.  This 
soil  is  from  lower  bottom,  overflowing  every  year. 

50- A. — Cottonwood  and  sycamore  originally  grew  on 
land ; cleared  75  years  or  more ; soil,  dark  brown ; subsoil, 
dark  brown ; level  overflow ; drainage,  natural ; all  corn  ; 60 
to  65  bushels  per  acre;  no  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no 
lime ; no  legumes  grown ; red  clover  does  well ; smartweed  and 
horseweed,  the  principal  weeds ; very  good  corn  land ; pota- 
toes do  not  do  very  well ; soil  from  upper  bottom,  overflowing 
every  few  years. 

51- A. — Oak,  pine  and  hickory  originally  grew  on  land; 
cleared  50  years ; soil,  reddish ; subsoil,  red ; level  terrace ; 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


25 


drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover  and  timo- 
thy; 50  bushels  corn,  12  bushels  wheat;  no  manure  applied; 
no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  clover  grown;  red  clover  does  well; 
foxtail,  ragweed,  etc.,  the  principal  weeds ; common  type  of 
small  stream  bottom  soil  in  West  Virginia,  with  Upshur 
highlands  surrounding  it. 

52- A. — Oak,  pine  and  hickory  originally  grew  on  land ; 
cleared  5 years ; soil,  dark  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish ; steep 
highland;  drainage,  natural;  pasture  land;  never  in  crops; 
bluegrass  predominates;  no  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no 
lime ; no  legumes  grown ; do  not  know  if  red  clover  does  well ; 
ragweed,  sumac  bushes,  the  principal  growth ; as  near  “virgin” 
soil  as  any  in  locality ; example  of  soil  which  is  cleared  and 
no  crops  have  since  been  removed ; has  been  pastured  very 
lightly. 

53- A. — Creek  bottom ; oak,  cottonwood  and  sycamore 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  reddish  brown ; 
subsoil,  red;  level  overflow  and  terrace;  drainage,  natural; 
corn  and  grass ; no  system  until  recently ; 35  bushels  corn ; 
2 tons  hay;  no  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  clover 
grown ; red  clover  does  well ; crab  grass,  ragweed  and  morn- 
ing glory,  the  principal  weeds. 

54- A. — South  side  creek  bottom ; sycamore,  cottonwood 
and  oak  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years;  soil,  reddish 
brown  ; subsoil,  red ; level  overflow  and  terrace ; drainage,  nat- 
ural; corn  and  grass;  no  system  until  recently;  35  bushels 
corn,  2 tons  hay;  no  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no  lime; 
red  clover  grown  ; red  clover  does  well ; ragweed,  crab  grass 
and  morning  glory,  the  principal  weeds. 

55- A. — Center  of  farm  ; oak,  hickory,  tulip  and  pine  orig- 
inally grew  on  land;  cleared  100  years;  soil,  light  gray;  sub- 
soil, yellow ; level  terrace ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn, 
timothy  and  cowpeas ; 50  bushels  corn;  Japan  clover,  broom- 
sedge  and  foxtail  predominate ; manure  applied  three  times  in 
last  6 years,  thin  8 tons ; 14%  acid  phosphate,  350  per  acre ; 
no  lime ; to  be  applied  soon ; cowpeas,  crimson  clover  and  red 
clover  grown ; red  clover  does  not  do  well ; foxtail,  ragweed, 
sorrel  and  broornsedge,  the  principal  weeds.  This  soil  was 
very  much  depleted  during  slavery  times ; is  oldest  farm  in 
country ; was  very  much  run  down  until  about  eight  years 
ago ; present  owner  has  applied  much  fertilizer,  at  first  bone 
meal,  now  acid  phosphate. 

56- A. — Oak,  hickory,  locust  and  tulip  originally  grew  on 
land ; cleared  75  years  ago  but  has  been  in  pasture  and  thicket 


26 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin' 161 


for  30  years ; soil,  gray ; subsoil,  reddish  yellow ; rolling-  high- 
land ; drainage,  natural ; pasture  land ; wild  grasses,  Canadian 
bluegrass  and  some  Kentucky  bluegrass ; no  manure  applied 
no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  do  not  know  if  red  clover  does  well; 
sorrel,  broomsedge  and  blackberries,  principal  growth ; is  to 
be  cleared  for  peach  orchard  this  year ; was  in  locust  and  per- 
simmon thicket  until  2 years  ago. 

57- A. — Oak,  hickory,  poplar  and  ash  originally  grew  on- 
land  ; cleared  25  years ; soil,  light  gray ; subsoil,  yellow ; level 
terrace;  drainage,  natural;  rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  clover  and 
timothy ; 35  bushels  corn,  12  bushels  wheat,  1 ton  hay ; pover- 
ty grass,  foxtail  and  red  top  predominate;  manure  applied 
occasionally  in  spots ; 16%  acid  phosphate,  400  pounds  per 
acre  every  4 years,  and  2-8-2  before  1906;  no  lime;  clover 
grown  ; red  clover  does  only  fairly  well ; foxtail  and  ragweed, 
the  principal  weeds. 

58- A. — Oak  and  poplar  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared 
10  to  15  years;  soil,  grayish;  subsoil,  yellow;  rolling  high- 
land ; drainage,  natural ; sod ; no  manure  applied ; no  fertili- 
zer ; no  lime,  no  legumes ; red  clover  does  well ; cinquefoil,, 
the  principal  weed. 

59- A. — Southeast  of  barn ; white  oak  originally  grew  on- 
land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  dark  red ; subsoil,  dark  red ; roll- 
ing highland ; poor  drainage,  too  tenaceous ; farmed  perhaps 
_earlier  but  last  30  years  allowed  to  run  to  grass  and  under- 
brush ; grubs,  sorrel,  etc.,  predominate ; little  manure  applied ; 
little  fertilizer;  no  lime;  red  clover  does  well;  wild  sweet 
potatoes ; briers  and  milkweed,  the  principal  weeds. 

60- A.— White  oak  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  50  to 
60  years ; soil,  red ; subsoil,  red ; rolling  highland ; pasture, 
corn  and  wheat;  15  bushels  wheat,  60  bushels  corn;  no  ma- 
nure applied;  fertilizer  applied  once;  no  lime;  no  legumes 
grown ; red  clover  does  well ; some  sorrel. 

61- A. — Discard,  2.21%.  Oak  and  poplar  originally  grew 
on  land ; cleared  100  years ; soil,  yellowish ; subsoil,  light  yel- 
low ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; poverty  grass,  etc., 
predominate;  no  manure  applied;  no  fertilizer;  no  lime;  le- 
gumes grown  very  little.  This  soil  was  in  tobacco  for  years, 
but  of  late  years  has  been  practically  abandoned  and  let  go 
to  briers,  etc. 

62- A. — South  of  barn ; sugar  trees  originally  grew  on 
land;  cleared  7 5 years;  soil,  reddish;  subsoil,  reddish;  level 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


27 


overflow ; drainage,  artificial ; rotation  of  corn  and  wheat  for 
50  years;  60  to  70  bushels  of  corn;  no  manure  applied;  no 
fertilizer;  no  lime;  very  little  clover;  red  clover  does  well; 
excellent  land ; overflows  once  a year. 

63- A. — South  of  locks  ; cleared  100  years ; soil,  dark  gray ; 
subsoil,  grayish ; level  overflow ; drainage,  natural ; corn  and 
wheat  for  years;  60  to  100  bushels  corn,  20  to  30  bushels 
wheat ; manure  applied  once  or  twice ; no  fertilizer ; a little 
lime,*  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well.  This  land  was 
overflowed  in  1913  and  covered  with  sand,  etc. 

64- A. — Discard,  23.12%.  White  oak  originally  grew  on 
land;  cleared  35  years;  soil,  dark  brown;  subsoil,  reddish; 
rolling  highland;  corn  and  wheat,  mostly  wheat;  12  to  15 
bushels;  bluegrass  predominates;  no  manure  applied;  no  fer- 
tilizer; no  lime;  cowpeas  a few  years;  red  clover  does  well. 
The  limestone  outcrop  was  in  form  of  good  sized  slabs  mixed 
with  the  soil. 

65- A. — Discard,  2.12%.  North  of  barn;  oak  and  poplar 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  75  years ; soil,  grayish ; sub- 
soil, yellowish ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; corn,  oats 
and  hay,  also  wheat ; manure  applied  every  few  years ; a little 
complete  fertilizer  applied ; no  lime ; red  clover  sown ; sapling 
clover  does  well  ; yarrow,  cinquefoil,  sorrel  and  some  poverty 
grass,  the  principal  weeds. 

66- A. — Discard,  5.49%.  One  mile  north  of  Masontown, 
100  yards  east  of  pike ; oak,  maple  and  chestnut  originallv 
grew  on  land ; cleared  20  years ; soil,  light  brown ; subsoil, 
light  yellow;  rolling  highland;  drainage,  natural;  corn,  wheat, 
grass;  pasture  mostly;  60  bushels  corn,  1 y2  tons  hay;  now  in 
potatoes ; 3 cattle  supported  to  the  acre ; manure  applied  twice, 
4 tons  per  acre;  acid  phosphate,  16%,  500  pounds  per  acre;  2 
tons  lime  per  acre ; clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well ; cinque- 
foil and  briers,  the  principal  weeds ; now  in  fine  cultivation  ; 
promises  150  bushels  potatoes  per  acre;  rather  loose  and  fri- 
able; one  of  the  typical  potato  soils. 

67- A. — Discard,  5.79%.  150  yards  northeast  of  barn;  oak, 
walnut,  and  locust  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  50  years; 
soil,  brown;  subsoil,  light  yellow;  rolling  highland;  drainage, 
natural ; corn,  oats,  grass  (mowed  3 times)  ; pasture  before ; 
50  bushels  corn,  40  bushels  oats;  bluegrass  and  redtop  pre- 
dominate ; 3 acres  per  steer ; manure  applied  3 times,  8 tons  to 
the  acre;  200  pounds  16%  acid  phosphate  to  the  acre;  limed 


28 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


10  years  ago,  125  bushels;  good  clover;  red  clover  does  well; 
yarrow  and  cinquefoil,  the  principal  weeds ; north  end  of  hill 
typifies  best  pasture  land  in  district. 

68- A. — Discard,  2.16%.  One-half  mile  west  of  house;  wa- 
ter oak,  ash,  and  hickory  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  40 
years ; soil,  black  to  gray ; subsoil,  bluish  gray ; level  overflow ; 
no  drainage ; pasture ; bluegrass,  swamp ; no  manure  applied, 
no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; iron  weed,  mint,  alders,  and  some  sorrel, 
the  principal  growths. 

69-  A. — Discard,  20.00%.  Southeast  of  house;  white  oak 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  dark  brown ; 
subsoil,  light  yellow ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; ro- 
tation of  corn,  oats,  wheat,  and  grass  ; 50  bushels  corn  ; manure 
applied  once  in  five  years ; acid  phosphate  and  bone  applied ; 
lime  applied  two  or  three  times,  not  for  8 or  9 years ; some 
clover  grown  ; red  clover  does  well. 

70- A. — Discard,  6.85%.  Southeast  of  barn;  oak,  chestnut, 
poplar,  and  sugar  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  75  years ; 
soil,  light  brown ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rolling  highland ; rota- 
tion of  corn,  oats,  buckwheat,  and  potatoes;  50  bushels  corn; 
no  manure  applied  for  5 years  ; some  fair  grade  fertilizer  and 
acid  phosphate  applied  ; limed  every  time  plowed  for  5 years ; 
mostly  timothy  grown ; red  clover  does  fairly  well ; no  sorrel, 
buck  plantain. 

71- A. — Discard,  15.00%.  Southeast  of  barn;  poplar  and 
oak  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  75  years;  soil,  brownish 
red ; subsoil,  brick  red ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; 
rotation  of  corn,  oats,  timothy,  and  clover;  50  bushels  corn; 
manured  3 times  in  12  years ; acid  phosphate  applied  about  6 
times  in  12  years;  limed  12  years  ago,  before  that  had  several 
heavy  applications ; clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well ; rattle 
weed  and  deer  tongue,  the  principal  weeds.  This  farm  has  been 
farmed  for  75  years  and  had  been  worn  to  the  point  25  years 
ago  where  it  was  very  unproductive. 

72- A. — Discard,  3.11%.  Northwest  of  barn;  sugar  maple 
and  oak  originally  grew  on  land ; part  cleared  25  years,  re- 
mainder 50  years ; soil,  dark  brown ; subsoil,  yellowish  ; roll- 
ing highland ; drainage,  natural ; potatoes,  oats,  and  buckwheat 
grown;  150  bushels  potatoes,  30  bushels  buckwheat;  several 
applications  of  manure ; acid  phosphate  applied ; several  appli- 
cations of  lime ; red  clover  grown  ; red  clover  does  well.  This 
is  a typical  potato  and  buckwheat  soil. 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


29 


73- A. — Discard,  .51%.  Bottom  south  of  house;  sugar 
trees  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  red ; sub- 
soil, reddish ; level  overflow ; no  drainage ; corn  principally, 
some  meadow ; good  corn  land ; no  manure  applied,  no  fertili- 
zer, no  lime ; white  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well. 

74- A. — Discard,  1.80%.  Northeast  of  barn;  cleared  50 
years ; soil,  grayish ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rotation  of  corn, 
wheat,  and  timothy;  a little  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no 
lime ; some  clover  grown ; red  clover  does  not  do  very  well. 

75- A. — Discard,  3.93%.  West  of  house;  beech  and  sugar 
•originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  or  60  years ; soil,  dark 
brown ; subsoil,  light  brown ; level  terrace ; rotation  of  tobacco, 
corn,  and  wheat ; some  manure  applied,  some  fertilizer,  no 
lime ; red  clover  does  well.  This  should  be  a typical  sample  of 
tobacco  soil.  Grows  best  quality  Burley  of  reddish  yellow  color. 

76- A. — Discard,  1.40%.  South  of  bam;  cleared  75  years; 
soil,  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish ; level  terrace ; rotation  of  corn, 
oats,  wheat,  and  timothy ; some  manure  applied,  not  much, 
no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; red  clover  does  not 
<lo  well ; poverty  grass  and  mint,  the  principal  weeds.  This 
soil  is  very  unproductive  at  present.  It  is  covered  with  pover- 
ty grass  although  it  has  been  sown  to  timothy. 

77- A. — Discard,  1.38%.  Soil,  light  gray;  subsoil,  bluish; 
level  terrace ; no  drainage ; no  rotation ; oats  poor  crop ; no  ma- 
nure applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; red 
•clover  does  not  do  well ; land  seriously  in  need  of  drainage ; 
quite  flat ; this  sample  typical  of  large  area  of  this  kind  of  land. 

78-  A. — Discard,  1.76%.  Soil,  light  red;  subsoil,  yellow- 
ish ; corn  and  timothy  grown. 

79- A. — Discard,  1.69%.  West  of  house;  cleared  50  years; 
soil,  brown ; subsoil,  light  brown  ; level  terrace ; rotation  of 
wheat,  corn,  and  timothy,  mostly  wheat ; not  much  manure  ap- 
plied, no  fertilizer,  one  application  2000  pounds  CaC03 ; no  le- 
gumes grown  lately ; red  clover  does  not  do  very  well. 

80-  A. — Discard,  .84%.  East  of  barn;  cleared  75  years; 
soil,  dark  gray ; subsoil,  light  gray ; level  overflow ; rotation  of 
corn,  wheat,  and  timothy ; manure  applied  occasionally,  fertil- 
izer occasionally,  one  application  of  lime  last  year ; clover 
grown;  red  clover  does  fairly  well. 


30 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


81-A. — Discard,  15.75%.  North  of  barn;  oak,  hickory,, 
beech,  and  walnut  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  10  years;, 
soil,  dark  brown ; subsoil,  yellow ; rolling  highland ; drainage, 
natural;  rotation  of  corn,  oats,  and  clover;  40  bushels  corn,. 
50  bushels  oats,  1 y2  tons  clover;  bluegrass  predominates;  no 
manure,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  clover  grown;  red  clover  does, 
fairly  well ; milkweed,  briers,  and  whitetop,  the  principal 
weeds.  - 


82- A. — Discard,  2.03%.  North  of  house;  cleared  50  years;, 
soil,  light  red;  subsoil,  light  red;  rolling  highland;  rotation  of 
corn,  wheat,  and  timothy ; yield  not  very  high ; no  manure  ap- 
plied, no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown. 

83- A. — Discard,  2.05%.  North  of  barn;  heavily  manured; 
this  sample  is  typical  but  has  been  heavily  manured  and  is  un- 
derlain with  mussel  shells  evidently  left  by  Indians. 

84- A. — Dicard,  1.46%.  Cleared  probably  100  years; 
soil,  light  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish  ; level  terrace ; rotation  of 
corn,  wheat,  and  timothy ; very  little  manure  applied,  no  fer- 
tilizer, no  lime ; red  clover  does  not  do  well ; typical  of  soils  in 
Teays  Valley;  soil  covered  with  cinquefoil;  very  little  grass. 

85- A. — Discard,  1.21%.  Hickory  originally  grew  on 
land ; cleared  100  years ; soil,  dark  gray ; subsoil,  yellow  and 
blue ; artificial  drainage ; before  draining,  swampy ; meadow 
up  to  20  years  ago ; 3 tons  hay ; 80  bushels  corn ; 5 applications 
of  8 tons  of  manure,  2500  pounds  acid  phosphate ; limed,  1 ton 
CaO  per  acre ; clover  and  cowpeas,  mostly  clover ; red  clover 
does  well ; some  sorrel.  This  sample  represents  the  flat  land. 

86- A. — Discard,  4.16%.  North  of  buildings;  oak,  walnut, 
and  sycamore  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil, 
black;  subsoil,  olive;  level  overflow;  artificial  drainage  need- 
ed ; no  rotation  in  old  meadow ; consists  of  yarrow,  daisy, 
poverty  grass,  and  is  a typical  “run  down”  meadow. 

87- A.— -Discard,  8.48%.  South  of  barn;  oak,  chestnut, 
and  some  poplar  originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  75  years; 
soil,  light  brown ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rolling  highland ; drain- 
age, natural ; corn,  wheat,  largely  grass ; sorrel,  briers,  etc., 
predominate;  no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  no 
legumes  grown  ; red  clover  does  not  do  well ; rock  close  to 
surface. 

88- A. — Discard,  1.88%.  Poplar,  beech,  and  sugar  origin- 
ally grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  brown ; subsoil, 
brown ; level  overflow ; artificial  drainage ; mostly  meadow, 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


31 


some  corn  and  some  oats;  75  bushels  corn;  a little  manure  ap- 
plied, a little  fertilizer,  a little  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; lime- 
stone on  tops  of  hills  in  small  amounts. 

89- A. — Discard,  2.77%.  South  of  house;  oak,  hickory, 
and  walnut  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  100  years ; soil, 
dark  brown;  subsoil,  chocolate;  rolling  highland;  drainage, 
natural ; rotation  of  corn,  oats,  and  clover ; 50  bushels  corn,  40 
bushels  oats,  1 ton  hay. 

90- A. — Discard,  7.31%.  East  of  barn;  sugar  trees  origi- 
nally grew  on  land;  cleared  100  years;  soil,  dark  brown;  sub- 
soil, yellowish;  rolling  highland;  drainage,  natural;  pasture 
more  than  ^2,  farmed  12  or  15  years;  60  bushels  corn,  2 tons 
soybean  hay ; only  1 application  of  manure,  4 or  5 applications 
250  pounds  phosphate ; limed  once,  1 ton  CaO ; 2 crops  soy- 
beans, 1 crimson  clover ; red  clover  does  well ; sorrel,  the  prin- 
cipal weed.  This  sample  represents  the  hill  land  under  culti- 
vation. 

91- A. — Discard,  9.88%.  Northeast  slope,  oak  originally 
grew  on  land;  cleared  75  years;  soil,  light  brown;  subsoil,  yel- 
lowish ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; mostly  grass  and 
pasture ; poverty  grass  predominates ; no  manure  applied,  no 
fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown ; red  clover  does  not  do 
well ; sorrel,  the  principal  weed ; typical  poverty  grass,  north- 
eastern slope. 

92- A. — Discard,  10.42%.  Northwest  slope;  walnut  and 
poplar  originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  75  years ; soil,  dark 
brown ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  nat- 
ural ; bluegrass  and  poverty  grass  predominate ; no  manure 
applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  legumes  grown.  This  is 
same  soil  as  91-A,  that  is,  it  is  derived  from  the  same  rock  but 
has  northwestern  exposure  instead  of  northeastern. 

93- A. — Discard,  .76%.  South  of  barn;  pine  land;  cleared 
100  years ; soil,  grayish : subsoil,  yellowish ; under  cultivation, 
corn,  wheat,  and  timothy;  no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer; 
2000  pounds  CaCOs  applied ; soybeans  grown ; red  clover  does 
well;  sorrel,  the  principal  weed;  this  sample  from  farm  which 
has  been  farmed  for  100  years  and  is  just  now  being  well 
farmed. 

94- A.— Discard,  1.01%.  Northeast  of  barn;  soil,  grayish; 
subsoil,  light  gray ; level  terrace ; rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  and 
timothy ; little  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer ; no  legumes 
grown. 


32 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


95- A. — Discard,  2.20%.  Near  barn;  cleared  100  years; 
soil,  chocolate ; subsoil,  yellowish ; level  terrace ; in  grass  for 
years,  farmed  to  alfalfa  and  corn ; excellent  corn  crop  now ; 
bluegrass  predominates ; some  manure  applied,  some  acid 
phosphate,  two  applications  of  lime  for  alfalfa ; alfalfa  and  red 
clover  grown ; red  clover  does  well ; this  has  probably  been  in- 
fluenced by  limestone  from  adjacent  hill  in  which  there  is  thin 
ledge.  This  had  been  bluegrass  pasture  for  years. 

96- A. — Discard,  1.04%.  Oak,  sycamore,  and  sugar  orig- 
inally grew  on  land ; cleared  85  years ; soil,  reddish ; subsoil, 
chocolate ; level  overflow ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of  corn, 
oats,  and  grass ; 70  bushels  corn ; very  little  manure  applied, 
some  fertilizer,  1 ton  lime  per  acre.  The  soil  has  been  filled 
in  largely  the  last  ten  years  by  overflow. 

97- A. — Discard,  1.96%.  Top  of  hill  back  of  barn;  cleared 
50  years ; soil,  whitish  ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; 
hay  grown ; timothy  predominates ; acid  phosphate  applied ; 
sorrel,  the  principal  weed ; land  practically  bare  when  Mr. 
Hardman  bought  it ; treated  with  acid  phosphate  and  got  good 
crop  of  timothy. 

98- A. — Discard,  1.11%.  Sugar  and  oak  originally  grew 
on  land;  cleared  100  years;  soil,  light  brown;  subsoil,  yellow- 
ish ; level  terrace,  corn  and  wheat  for  years,  under  cultivation 
24  of  100  years ; 50  bushels  corn  ; 4 or  5 applications  of  ma- 
nure, 4 or  5 small  applications  of  fertilizer,  limed  twice ; clover 
grown  ; red  clover  does  fairly  well ; considerable  plantain. 

99- A. — Discard,  5.71%.  Next  creek;  oak  and  hickory 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  50  years ; soil,  chocolate ; sub- 
soil, yellow ; rolling  terrace ; drainage,  natural ; no  rotation 
practiced ; poverty  grass,  briers  and  redtop  predominate. 

100- A. — Discard,  1.40%.  West  of  barn;  land  originally 
swamp ; soil,  black ; subsoil,  black ; level  overflow ; artificial 
drainage  35  years  ago  but  re-drained  the  last  few  years ; grass, 
corn  now ; no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  le- 
gumes grown. 

101- A. — Discard,  2.25%.  Soil,  black;  subsoil,  yellowish; 
soil  good  for  corn  but  unsatisfactory  for  grass. 

102- A. — Discard,  1.05%.  West  of  house;  cleared  100 
years  ; soil,  reddish  ; subsoil,  reddish  ; level  overflow ; drainage, 
natural;  rotation  of  corn,  wheat,  timothy,  and  some  clover; 
manure  applied  occasionally,  some  fertilizer,  no  lime ; clover 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


3a 


grown  occasionally;  red  clover  does  fairly  well;  this  repre- 
sents a flat  field  which  overflows  yearly  or  nearly  that  often; 
nice  bottom  field. 

103- A. — Discard,  1.21%.  Southeast  of  barn;  sugar  trees 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  10  years  or  so ; soil,  dark 
gray  to  brown ; subsoil,  brown ; level  overflow ; no  drainage ; 
grass  and  pasture;  no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;, 
no  legumes;  some  limestone  upstream. 

104- A. — Discard,  12.56%.  East  of  house;  cleared  50  years 
or  more;  soil,  brown;  subsoil,  yellowish;  land  in  grass;  5 
acres  or  more  to  a steer;  poverty  grass  and  such  grasses  pre- 
dominate; no  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  no  le- 
gumes grown ; red  clover  does  not  do  well ; has  been  in  mead- 
ow and  pasture  and  nothing  ever  done  but  mow  hay  and  pas- 
ture. 

105- A. — Discard,  1.50%.  Southwest  of  barn;  white  oak 
originally  grew  on  land;  cleared  75  years;  soil,  gray;  subsoil, 
yellowish ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; rotation  of 
corn,  wheat,  timothy,  and  oats ; some  manure  applied,  very  lit- 
tle, no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  legumes  grown  very  little;  red 
clover  does  not  do  well ; poverty  grass  and  wire  grass,  the 
principal  weeds;  this  is  typical  of  rather  white  soil  of  Jack- 
son  County. 

106- A. — Discard,  1.07%.  East  of  barn;  white  oak  origi- 
nally grew  on  land ; soil,  light  brown ; subsoil,  yellowish ; roll- 
ing terrace;  drainage,  natural;  soil  in  poor  shape  and  has  not 
been  well  farmed  for  years. 

107- A. — Discard,  7.40%.  Southeast  of  barn;  oak  and  pine 
originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  75  years,  second  growth  until' 
5 years  ago ; soil,  grayish ; subsoil,  yellowish ; rolling  high- 
land ; corn,  wheat,  and  timothy  years  ago ; some  fertilizer  ap- 
plied, no  lime ; Legumes  do  not  grow  well ; red  clover  does 
not  do  well ; sorrel,  poverty  grass,  pennyroyal,  and  cinquefoil, 
the  principal  weeds ; has  been  farmed  for  years  and  then  al- 
lowed to  grow  up  to  underbrush. 

108- A. — Discard,  1.20%.  Northeast  of  house;  oak  origi- 
nally grew  on  land ; cleared  12  years ; soil,  gray ; subsoil,  yel- 
lowish ; level  highland ; drainage,  natural ; orchard ; no  ma- 
nure applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  red  clover  does  well;  sor- 
rel, the  principal  weed. 

109- A. — Discard,  6.19%.  North  of  church;  oak  and  chest- 
nut originally  grew  on  land ; cleared  75  to  100  years ; soil,. 


34 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


grayish  ; subsoil,  yellow ; rolling  highland ; drainage,  natural ; 
rotation  of  corn,  oats,  wheat,  and  timothy ; very  little  manure 
applied,  a little  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  clover  ever  sown, 
do  not  know  if  red  clover  does  well ; cinquefoil,  sorrel,  and 
poverty  grass,  the  principal  weeds ; this  sample  chosen  from 
poorly  farmed  area  now  in  meadow  adjoining  the  church  yard. 

110- A. — Discard,  1.03%.  Poplar  originally  grew  on  land; 
cleared  75  years ; soil,  chocolate ; subsoil,  chocolate ; level  ter- 
race ; drainage,  natural ; corn,  wheat,  and  timothy,  is  now  in 
watermelons;  some  manure  applied,  no  fertilizer,  no  lime;  le- 
gumes not  grown  to  amount  to  anything;  red  clover  does  not 
do  very  well.  This  is  excellent  and  typical  watermelon  soil. 

111- A. — Discard,  2.45%.  West  of  town;  soil,  yellowish 
brown ; drainage,  natural ; covered  with  very  poor  wheat ; 
probably  never  had  any  lime  or  fertilizer  and  very  little  ma- 
nure. 

112- A. — Discard,  2.31%.  Poplar,  sugar,  and  oak  original- 
ly grew  on  land ; cleared  100  years ; soil,  red ; subsoil,  red ; 
rolling  highland  ; drainage,  artificial ; alfalfa,  cowpeas,  clover 
several  times;  3 tons  alfalfa,  75  bushels  corn;  manured  7 or  8 
times,  3000  pounds  acid  phosphate,  3 tons  CaO  last  10  years; 
red  clover  does  well. 

113- A. — Discard,  3.61%.  West  of  barn;  chestnut  origi- 
nally grew  on  land;  cleared  75  or  100  years;  soil,  light  brown 
or  gray ; subsoil,  yellowish  ; rolling  terrace  ; drainage,  natural ; 
briers  and  broomsedge,  corn  this  year ; one  application  of  ma- 
nure, two  or  three  applications  of  fertilizer,  no  lime ; no  le- 
gumes grown. 

114- A. — Discard,  13.51%.  West  of  house;  white  oak  orig- 
inally grew  on  land ; cleared  25  years ; soil,  light  gray ; subsoil, 
yellowish;  level  highland;  rotation  of  corn,  oats,  and  timothy; 
acre  yield  not  very  high ; 2 or  3 applications  of  manure,  1 ap- 
plication of  fertilizer,  1 ton  CaO  applied ; some  clover  grown, 
now  ready  for  alfalfa ; red  clover  does  not  do  very  well.  The 
surface  was  covered  with  fragments  of  sandstone. 

115- A. — Drainage,  artificial;  rotation  of  corn,  oats,  wheat, 
clover,  and  timothy;  for  yield  see  Ohio  circular  144;  analy- 
sis, Ohio  bulletin  261  ; 6 inches  surface  soil ; phosphorus,  664 ; 
potassium,  33,110;  nitrogen,  1778;  humus,  18800;  calcium, 
4720;  magnesium,  7778.  This  soil  corresponds  to  soil  on 
plots  in  five-year  rotation  which  has  never  received  any  fer- 
tilizer or  manure  since  the  experiments  were  begun  in  1893. 


August,  1916]  ANALYSES  OF  100  W.  VA.  SOILS 


35 


INTERPRETATION  OF  ANALYSES. 

Nitrogen,  phosphorus,  and  potassium  are  three  elements 
of  plant  food  which  may  be  present  in  available  forms  in  such 
small  amounts  in  the  soil  as  to  be  limiting  factors  in  crop 
production.  The  foregoing  analyses  show  the  total  number 
of  pounds  of  these  elements  present  but  not  the  number  of 
pounds  which  are  available.  It  is  recognized  that  the  amount 
of  available  plant  food  materials  in  the  soil  is  determined  by 
three  things : 

1.  The  total  amount  of  these  elements  present  in  the 
soil. 

2.  The  extent  to  which  organic  matter  is  incorpor- 
ated with  the  soil. 

3.  The  extent  to  which  the  soil  can  be  kept  supplied 
with  carbonate  of  lime  in  order  that  the  normal 
processes  of  decay  may  take  place  readily. 

If  two  soils  were  equally  supplied  with  organic  matter 
and  limestone,  and  one  of  these  soils  contained  twice  the 
amount  of  nitrogen,  phosphorus  or  potassium  as  did  the  other, 
it  seems  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  one  containing  twice 
the  total  amount  of  these  elements  would  also  be  able  to  sup- 
ply the  crop  being  grown  with  twice  the  amount  of  these  ele- 
ments in  available  form. 

In  considering  the  subject  of  soil  fertility  from  the  long 
time  point  of  view  it  seems  desirable,  therefore,  to  know  the 
total  amounts  of  nitrogen,  phosphorus  and  potassium,  the 
amount  of  organic  matter  and  the  amount  of  carbonate  of 
lime  present  in  the  soil.  Knowing  these  things,  we  can  plan 
ahead  more  intelligently  as  to  how  to  proceed  toward  a per- 
manent system  of  soil  building. 

Table  IV  shows  the  average  of  all  the  analyses  of  West 
Virginia  soils  so  far  made.  The  amount  of  organic  matter  is 
calculated  by  multiplying  the  total  carbon  by  1.724  which 
would  mean  that  organic  matter  was  58%  carbon.  The  lime- 
stone requirement  indicates  the  number  of  pounds  of  lime- 
stone necessary  to  destroy  all  the  acid  in  the  surface  soil  to 
plow  depth.  For  most  crops  it  is  desirable  to  have  the  soil 
well  supplied  with  limestone. 


36 


W.  VA.  AGR’L  EXPERIMENT  STATION  [Bulletin  161 


TABLE  IV. — Pounds  per  2,000,000  Lbs.  of  Surface  Soil. 


Highest 

Nitrogen  6,485 

Phosphorus  3,635 

Potassium  143,000 

Organic  matter  302,800 


Limestone  requirement  6,800 


Average  of  Plot  21,  Exp. 


Lowest 

All  Soils 

Sta.  Farm 

1,035 

2,915 

1,830 

355 

1,095 

590 

1,200 

30,610 

24,200 

26,200 

57,800 

36,500 

0 

2,170 

2,800 

A study  of  the  analyses  of  these  soils  will  show  that  many 
of  them  are  seriously  depleted  of  phosphorus,  nitrogen,  and  or- 
ganic matter.  Over  90%  of  the  soils  of  West  Virginia  show 
a need  of  lime.  Most  of  the  soils  are  fairly  well  supplied  with 
potassium. 

We  prefer  to  wait  until  more  analyses  have  been  made 
before  discussing  these  analyses  in  detail.  However,  Table 
IV  also  gives  the  analysis  of  one  of  the  check  plots  on  the  Ex- 
periment Station  farm  at  Morgantown,  and  this  shows  that 
the  average  West  Virginia  soil  so  far  analyzed  is  better  than 
that  on  the  Experiment  Station  farm.  But  a careful  study 
of  the  analyses  will  show  that  many  of  the  soils  of  the  state 
would  probably  respond  to  fertilizer  treatment  much  the  same 
as  does  the  soil  on  the  Experiment  Station  farm.* 


♦See  “Experiments  with  Fertilizers,”  Bulletin  155,  West  Virginia  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station. 


/ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


630.7W52B  r 

BULLETIN  MORGANTOWN 
152-161  1916 


3 0112  019919940 


